|
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 |
On June 15 2018 19:29 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2018 18:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 15 2018 15:26 Zaros wrote:On June 15 2018 10:09 KwarK wrote:
It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway. May would lose it, I think another Candidate could beat Corbyn for a majority but every day that passes with May in charge reduces that chance and the conservatives seem to scared to do anything. Only way I see any Brexit not in name only(leave single market, customs union and ECJ) happening is a mini constitutional crisis with May's deal being rejected by Parliament, EU not offering anything else and a new election/confidence vote in May unwilling to be called/won. In that scenario Parliament just gets stuck on Brexit with nowhere to move and the clock ticks down to no deal. The only other possibility is the Cons get rid of May, a brexiteer wins the leadership and goes to the country for another early election and gets a majority which is probably very unlikely The only Tories who could realistically replace May are Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Of them, maybe Rees-Mogg could pull it off, but he'd be a disastrous PM, going by the things he's said in interviews. Seems very much a politician from 20 years ago. And regardless, all of them are smart enough to know full well what will happen to the person in charge when it all goes down. Meanwhile, Labour is still recovering from trying to stab Corbyn in the back and discovering that actually, their voters do actually want Corbyn in charge for now, so all they got from months of bullshit was making Labour the weakest its been in over a decade at a time when Labour needs to be stronger than ever. A non-functional Labour, a barely functional Tory party, and a weak government lead by a Remainer who has no idea how to navigate through a mess she almost certainly thought was an impossibility. I wonder, as far as politics go, is this a particularly messy cluster fuck? Or has politics always been like this, with incompetence and indecision at every level and no clear way out? Was it like this for our parents' and grandparents generations? Or is this particular unique to now.
Have you read about the buildup to WW1? It was one giant clusterfuck of incompetent leaders.
|
While comparative history is far more difficult an undertaking than many believe, I think it's fair to say that incompetence and indecision of the kind we see today are nothing new. If anything, I'd wager we simply have more access to information. That said, I think it's possible to acknowledge that long-running trends in governance are similar to those of the present while admitting that things today still have their own uniquely fucked up character.
|
On June 15 2018 19:29 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2018 18:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 15 2018 15:26 Zaros wrote:On June 15 2018 10:09 KwarK wrote:
It'd be worse without FPTP. FPTP exaggerates slight advantages into heavy majorities. The problem is May completely dropped the ball in the last election. They will need to call another election before any Brexit treaty is passed, and I think they all know it. The problem is they know they will lose it and so they're just going to run out the clock anyway. May would lose it, I think another Candidate could beat Corbyn for a majority but every day that passes with May in charge reduces that chance and the conservatives seem to scared to do anything. Only way I see any Brexit not in name only(leave single market, customs union and ECJ) happening is a mini constitutional crisis with May's deal being rejected by Parliament, EU not offering anything else and a new election/confidence vote in May unwilling to be called/won. In that scenario Parliament just gets stuck on Brexit with nowhere to move and the clock ticks down to no deal. The only other possibility is the Cons get rid of May, a brexiteer wins the leadership and goes to the country for another early election and gets a majority which is probably very unlikely The only Tories who could realistically replace May are Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Of them, maybe Rees-Mogg could pull it off, but he'd be a disastrous PM, going by the things he's said in interviews. Seems very much a politician from 20 years ago. And regardless, all of them are smart enough to know full well what will happen to the person in charge when it all goes down. Meanwhile, Labour is still recovering from trying to stab Corbyn in the back and discovering that actually, their voters do actually want Corbyn in charge for now, so all they got from months of bullshit was making Labour the weakest its been in over a decade at a time when Labour needs to be stronger than ever. A non-functional Labour, a barely functional Tory party, and a weak government lead by a Remainer who has no idea how to navigate through a mess she almost certainly thought was an impossibility. I wonder, as far as politics go, is this a particularly messy cluster fuck? Or has politics always been like this, with incompetence and indecision at every level and no clear way out? Was it like this for our parents' and grandparents generations? Or is this particular unique to now.
It's periodic.
Thatcher led a strong government. She was a firm, confident, determined, charismatic leader with a particular (and quite horrible) vision for Britain. And she made it happen, for the betterment or worse of the country as a whole (YMMV).
Blair, for all his faults, was likewise a very good leader who ran a strong government and clowned his opposition pretty much until the Iraq War made his position untenable.
Things have gone to shit since then because Gordon Brown, who should have succeeded him, completely flubbed the landing and nobody thought David Cameron would be a thing, but he was actually a decent politician and - critically - more left wing than he appeared, so able to bleed voters and, during his tenure, make the Tories more generally appealing to the electorate by dragging them more to the left overall, causing some of the far righters to jump to UKIP, passing gay marriage etc.
So we went through two periods where both parties had a clear, strong identity, and now both are having an identity crisis at the same time.
Rinse and repeat for much of history, where relevant (or replace 'strong parties' with 'strong monarch')
|
So I think today might have revealed the worst MP in the uk. Christopher Chope has singlehandedly blocked a law to criminalize upskirting.
He previously blocked the pardon of Alan Turing, repeatedly blocked laws against using wild animals in circus acts, filibustered a bill to make revenge evictions illegal and campaigned to reintroduce the death penalty and conscription.
If the tories want to get rid of their 'nasty party' reputation maybe they could start with this guy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427
|
From your article:
Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
What does the new law propose?
As well as carrying a maximum two-year sentence, it would also allow, in the most serious cases, those convicted to be placed on the sex offenders register
Sir Christopher doesn't seem to be that bad.
|
|
|
On June 16 2018 02:23 Velr wrote:
Whats upskirting?
Ms Martin started the campaign to change the law after two men took a picture up her skirt while she was at a concert in London's Hyde Park last July.
Police said they were unable to prosecute as the picture was not graphic enough because she was wearing underwear.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44496427
|
On June 16 2018 02:23 Sent. wrote:From your article: Show nested quote +Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
What does the new law propose?
As well as carrying a maximum two-year sentence, it would also allow, in the most serious cases, those convicted to be placed on the sex offenders register Sir Christopher doesn't seem to be that bad.
Oddly this diligent commitment to parliamentary democracy mainly seems to affect the rights of women and gay people, and doesn't seem to have extended to - for example - giving parliament a say on the final Brexit deal. Principles are a funny old thing
|
On June 16 2018 02:58 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2018 02:23 Sent. wrote:From your article: Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
What does the new law propose?
As well as carrying a maximum two-year sentence, it would also allow, in the most serious cases, those convicted to be placed on the sex offenders register Sir Christopher doesn't seem to be that bad. Oddly this diligent commitment to parliamentary democracy mainly seems to affect the rights of women and gay people, and doesn't seem to have extended to - for example - giving parliament a say on the final Brexit deal. Principles are a funny old thing
If you look at his reasoning its always to do with strict parliamentary procedure, but the laws he blocks are always to do with helping gay people, women, animals etc.
When it turns into a pattern it gets harder to take him at his word about his motivations.
|
|
|
|
|
The average person is probably happy, but the NHS is a blackhole more money is never enough. Wish some other system could even be debated in public but its impossible. Might not even happen anyway, think May will struggle to get to the budget in October to pass it.
|
On June 19 2018 07:45 Zaros wrote:
The average person is probably happy, but the NHS is a blackhole more money is never enough. Wish some other system could even be debated in public but its impossible. Might not even happen anyway, think May will struggle to get to the budget in October to pass it.
May will stay simply because no one else wants to be responsible for the results of the Brexit.
Once that is done with the sharks will finally come in.
|
United States44316 Posts
It's somewhat amusing. May says it's funded by the "Brexit dividend" because she's giving back the 300m/week and then asks for a tax hike to pay for it. Can't quite get her story straight about where this money is coming from. Meanwhile filling out the paperwork to move goods in and out of the UK if the single market goes away is projected to cost 20b.
https://www.ft.com/content/fbdc5d58-5e97-11e8-9334-2218e7146b04
|
Theresa may's position looks incredibly feeble pretty much all the time. This NHS "gift" could have been the political win that she needed.
Brexit is the unwinnable foreign war of peace time, it always gets talked about and the only thing we can agree on is that everyone else's plans are terrible.
|
|
|
On June 19 2018 10:58 Kerotan wrote:
Theresa may's position looks incredibly feeble pretty much all the time. This NHS "gift" could have been the political win that she needed.
Brexit is the unwinnable foreign war of peace time, it always gets talked about and the only thing we can agree on is that everyone else's plans are terrible.
That's because nobody has an actual plan.
|
On June 19 2018 23:30 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 10:58 Kerotan wrote:
Theresa may's position looks incredibly feeble pretty much all the time. This NHS "gift" could have been the political win that she needed.
Brexit is the unwinnable foreign war of peace time, it always gets talked about and the only thing we can agree on is that everyone else's plans are terrible. That's because nobody has an actual plan.
None of the actual Brexit guys is a prime minister, but even they didn't have a plan. Just empty hopes. :D The UK opinion has changed a lot though. Highly voted comments on BBC were in favour of Brexit. They're against it now when I check that article about NHS.
|
On June 20 2018 02:05 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2018 23:30 iamthedave wrote:On June 19 2018 10:58 Kerotan wrote:
Theresa may's position looks incredibly feeble pretty much all the time. This NHS "gift" could have been the political win that she needed.
Brexit is the unwinnable foreign war of peace time, it always gets talked about and the only thing we can agree on is that everyone else's plans are terrible. That's because nobody has an actual plan. None of the actual Brexit guys is a prime minister, but even they didn't have a plan. Just empty hopes. :D The UK opinion has changed a lot though. Highly voted comments on BBC were in favour of Brexit. They're against it now when I check that article about NHS.
That started turning pretty much on the day of the brexit vote. A large portion of people didn't think it would go through, voted yes as a protest and immediately regretted it. And yes, that's exactly as dumb as it sounds.
|
There is no evidence that people have changed their minds over brexit, all polls show no significant change in opinion, bbc comments aren't a reliable source of British opinion >.<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
