|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United States44203 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:36 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 06:30 KwarK wrote:
He's not rich because he's exploited the taxpayers, he's rich because he's a member of a landed hereditary aristocracy. Let's just think about this statement for while... On to the topic at hand, the issue is that there is a conflict of interest here - lobbying for environmentalism (which you're quite right it has been well-known for for decades) but also for a position that he stands to make undisclosed profit from. Carbon trading is iffy anyway from a environmental perspective.
He's rich because his mum is rich. She's rich because her dad was. That's only exploitative if we believe property rights should end at death and that estates should be dissolved and divided between the commons. It's an idea that has been proposed a few times (Adam Smith for example) but it's not very popular or mainstream. In short, it's not due to exploitation beyond a Marxist "property is theft" approach.
If his environmentalism wasn't so very well established and his wealth so much greater than the amount he stood to gain then sure, this might appear iffy. But let's apply Occam's Razor for a second. Is it likely that the Crown Prince of Great Britain engaged in a public campaign of environmentalism over three decades, facing great opposition from both political society, and his own family, in order to engage in a stock pumping scheme that would, if successful, increase his wealth by less than he voluntarily gives to environmental causes each year?
Would I rather that his investments were public if he plans to use his position for lobbying for causes he believes in? Sure. Do I think anything shady happened here? Absolutely not. There is no rational narrative to get from what we know to anything shady. It doesn't make sense for the guy who owns most of Cornwall to run hustles for less than the price of a house in Cornwall.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On November 08 2017 07:34 Zaros wrote:
I don't think she has done anything wrong to be worth firing a talented politician.
It also looks pretty bad that Labour are calling for this dismissal with all the recent stories about the anti Semitism that runs through the party.
|
On November 08 2017 17:36 KelsierSC wrote:I don't think she has done anything wrong to be worth firing a talented politician. It also looks pretty bad that Labour are calling for this dismissal with all the recent stories about the anti Semitism that runs through the party.
Shes conducting her own foreign policy without informing anyone with what shes doing and then she lied about it, its pretty bad.
|
My mistake looks like May is in trouble now
You can't make this stuff up
|
On November 08 2017 17:36 KelsierSC wrote:I don't think she has done anything wrong to be worth firing a talented politician. It also looks pretty bad that Labour are calling for this dismissal with all the recent stories about the anti Semitism that runs through the party.
She has breached ministerial convention, and she should absolutely be fired - talent or not, you have to follow the rules. There is absolutely no way that this reflects worse on Labour.
It must be said, I think May is dragging out firing her to try and draw media attention away from Boris' cock up, which was even worse and should undoubtedly result in his sacking.
|
On November 08 2017 17:36 KelsierSC wrote:I don't think she has done anything wrong to be worth firing a talented politician. It also looks pretty bad that Labour are calling for this dismissal with all the recent stories about the anti Semitism that runs through the party.
You must be joking. What if the deals she had made had been with the Palestinians, would you change your opinion?
She tried to hide the fact that she was personally trying to make a deal with a foreign government. That's wrong on so many levels:
1: It subverts democracy
2: It goes against her party, including the Prime Minister
3: She lied about it
4: It is clearly against the rules.
5: The deal she was trying to make behind the government's back involved giving money to a foreign military.
What she did was wrong in both the moral and practical sense.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On November 09 2017 01:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 17:36 KelsierSC wrote:I don't think she has done anything wrong to be worth firing a talented politician. It also looks pretty bad that Labour are calling for this dismissal with all the recent stories about the anti Semitism that runs through the party. You must be joking. What if the deals she had made had been with the Palestinians, would you change your opinion? She tried to hide the fact that she was personally trying to make a deal with a foreign government. That's wrong on so many levels: 1: It subverts democracy 2: It goes against her party, including the Prime Minister 3: She lied about it 4: It is clearly against the rules. 5: The deal she was trying to make behind the government's back involved giving money to a foreign military. What she did was wrong in both the moral and practical sense.
If you read about her history I doubt she would be making deals to give money to Palestinians.
|
|
|
Mrs strong and stable leadership can't sack anyone from her ministers.. Boris Johnson will continue to be a moron.
|
Seems like Michael Gove is getting a lot of positive press today all after I put £10 on him as next PM at 25/1 noice.
|
Imagine having a prime minister who sometimes tries to do stuff that isn't terrible.
|
On November 10 2017 05:31 Jockmcplop wrote:
Imagine having a prime minister who sometimes tries to do stuff that isn't terrible.
Certainly a radical concept
|
Why is everyone talking about leadership contest? May's position seems more stable than a few weeks ago?
|
On November 10 2017 06:03 sc-darkness wrote:
Why is everyone talking about leadership contest? May's position seems more stable than a few weeks ago?
It's worse and its gets worse every day. She may even lose her deputy PM and other cabinet ministers soon.
this is a decent summary
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-sentience-cannot-feel-pain-emotion-vote-mps-agree-eu-withdrawal-bill-a8064676.html
MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience – the admission that animals feel emotion and pain – into the EU Withdrawal Bill.
The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove’s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.
So our MPs believe that animals do not feel pain or emotion, let that sink in.
Might seem minor to some of you, but the fact that something like this can happen in the UK is not a good sign going forward. Kind of something you'd expect from the Republican party but i'd like to think our MPs were a little bit smarter.
I wonder what else is next, a vote on whether the earth is round?
|
On November 21 2017 03:23 Reaps wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-sentience-cannot-feel-pain-emotion-vote-mps-agree-eu-withdrawal-bill-a8064676.htmlShow nested quote +MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience – the admission that animals feel emotion and pain – into the EU Withdrawal Bill.
The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove’s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.
So our MPs believe that animals do not feel pain or emotion, let that sink in. Might seem minor to some of you, but the fact that something like this can happen in the UK is not a good sign going forward. Kind of something you'd expect from the Republican party but i'd like to think our MPs were a little bit smarter. I wonder what else is next, a vote on whether the earth is round?
I don't think that you can use this vote as evidence that MPs believe that animals don't feel pain. It just proves that they don't give a fuck if there's money to be made.
|
On November 21 2017 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 03:23 Reaps wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-sentience-cannot-feel-pain-emotion-vote-mps-agree-eu-withdrawal-bill-a8064676.htmlMPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience – the admission that animals feel emotion and pain – into the EU Withdrawal Bill.
The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove’s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.
So our MPs believe that animals do not feel pain or emotion, let that sink in. Might seem minor to some of you, but the fact that something like this can happen in the UK is not a good sign going forward. Kind of something you'd expect from the Republican party but i'd like to think our MPs were a little bit smarter. I wonder what else is next, a vote on whether the earth is round? I don't think that you can use this vote as evidence that MPs believe that animals don't feel pain. It just proves that they don't give a fuck if there's money to be made.
Whatever their motivations it doesn't make the vote any less disgusting.
|
On November 21 2017 04:08 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 04:05 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 21 2017 03:23 Reaps wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-latest-animal-sentience-cannot-feel-pain-emotion-vote-mps-agree-eu-withdrawal-bill-a8064676.htmlMPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience – the admission that animals feel emotion and pain – into the EU Withdrawal Bill.
The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove’s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.
So our MPs believe that animals do not feel pain or emotion, let that sink in. Might seem minor to some of you, but the fact that something like this can happen in the UK is not a good sign going forward. Kind of something you'd expect from the Republican party but i'd like to think our MPs were a little bit smarter. I wonder what else is next, a vote on whether the earth is round? I don't think that you can use this vote as evidence that MPs believe that animals don't feel pain. It just proves that they don't give a fuck if there's money to be made. Whatever their motivations it doesn't make the vote any less disgusting.
For sure. Its worse actually because they are setting the example that its fine to disregards basic facts to get what you want. Not helpful in the current climate.
|
So there's a law that says animals feel pain and they scrapped it? What's wrong with that? I don't think there needs to be a law that says animals feel pain just as there doesn't have to be a law that says humans feel pain. It seems like a symbolic law more than anything. What's necessary are laws to prevent animal abuse. If they actually scrapped those I'd be worried.
|
On November 21 2017 04:44 RvB wrote:
So there's a law that says animals feel pain and they scrapped it? What's wrong with that? I don't think there needs to be a law that says animals feel pain just as there doesn't have to be a law that says humans feel pain. It seems like a symbolic law more than anything. What's necessary are laws to prevent animal abuse. If they actually scrapped those I'd be worried.
That's the point, this will put us on the step to remove those laws too, especially that the vast majority of animal welfare laws actually came from the EU, now that we are leaving the EU we have to make our own, and this vote is not a good sign.
You also have to question how many of the MPs actually believe if animals feel pain or not, or as Jock said are simply doing it for the money. I'm willing to bet at least some of them are the former. I'm not even sure which is worse either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
