|
I can't wait until Gideon publishes his parliamentary memoirs and reveals he was off his face for the entire five years.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Endjinneer posted:
Really? A pop science joke? Even normies know that and quantum cats and now because of Interstellar they think they now understand 4d tesseracts and black holes. Gotta get way more esoteric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Angepain posted:I can't wait until Gideon publishes his parliamentary memoirs and reveals he was off his face for the entire five years. Never mind that. Look at the effect it's had on his genitals! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Angepain posted:I can't wait until Gideon publishes his parliamentary memoirs and reveals he was off his face for the entire five years. I suspect that he's on some extremely strong prescription medication and that the media are doing that thing where they all know about it but don't report on it, like with Charles Kennedy's booze issues (the Westminster Omerta thing)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:Osborne looks - once again - like he's pretty strung out. He's wanting to take a big long drink of that cider. That is quite clearly homebrewed piss from Gideon's own shrivelled todger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
What is that object. I don't know what that object is. e: it's upsetting me
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eeIXxO2-6c
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:There was a recent season of rumbling rumours that SF would take up their seats, I think it's just based on that. I was actually idly thinking the other day: Would there be an event, such as some tremendous natural disaster perhaps, where SF would agree to take up their seats, even if only for a single vote? Something where they agreed with the necessity of action and supported the proposition, and where their votes were necessary. I'd be inclined to say you have to torture probability pretty hard to come to an affirmative here, for instance if almost every other MP was wiped out, but SF's were not, and were needed for a quorum. But I'm curious enough about what others think to throw the notion out there. I'm not familiar with whether they have any party constitutional issues that would also have to be addressed in such an event. This is all presuming no significant political shifts such as them actually taking their seats, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I was actually idly thinking the other day: Would there be an event, such as some tremendous natural disaster perhaps, where SF would agree to take up their seats, even if only for a single vote? Something where they agreed with the necessity of action and supported the proposition, and where their votes were necessary. I'd be inclined to say you have to torture probability pretty hard to come to an affirmative here, for instance if almost every other MP was wiped out, but SF's were not, and were needed for a quorum. But I'm curious enough about what others think to throw the notion out there. I'm not familiar with whether they have any party constitutional issues that would also have to be addressed in such an event. This is all presuming no significant political shifts such as them actually taking their seats, of course. As far as I'm aware there is a party constitutional prohibition on taking seats in Westminster and doing so would be grounds for immediate expulsion from the party, changing the constitution would require a general vote from party members at the Ard Fheis - this was necessary back in 1986 when they dropped abstentionism in the ROI and again in 1998 when they modified the rules to allow members to participate in elected institutions "on the island of Ireland" (the Assembly). There was a modified version of the constitution passed a couple of years back but I believe the key clauses on Westminster remained untouched. Historically votes to alter any rules on abstention have been pretty divisive and have been responsible for the various splits within the party - with SF cautiously eyeing the dissident parties trying to snap up disaffected true believers they don't want to poke that bee hive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ts-9977145.htmlEvening Standard posted:'No social housing' in our luxury tower block, boasts developer in advert for Greenwich flats Death to the housing market 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:As far as I'm aware there is a party constitutional prohibition on taking seats in Westminster and doing so would be grounds for immediate expulsion from the party, changing the constitution would require a general vote from party members at the Ard Fheis - this was necessary back in 1986 when they dropped abstentionism in the ROI and again in 1998 when they modified the rules to allow members to participate in elected institutions "on the island of Ireland" (the Assembly). There was a modified version of the constitution passed a couple of years back but I believe the key clauses on Westminster remained untouched. Historically votes to alter any rules on abstention have been pretty divisive and have been responsible for the various splits within the party - with SF cautiously eyeing the dissident parties trying to snap up disaffected true believers they don't want to poke that bee hive. Huh, interesting stuff. Thanks for the reply there! I suppose again you could dream up some vanishingly unlikely scenario where they say they'll deal with the consequences later, but sounds like if it ever happened it would be due to a slow shift in party policy, not some Big Scary Event. Also, put housing developers like that into social housing and house the disabled and elderly and unemployed in luxury flats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Huh, interesting stuff. Thanks for the reply there! I suppose again you could dream up some vanishingly unlikely scenario where they say they'll deal with the consequences later, but sounds like if it ever happened it would be due to a slow shift in party policy, not some Big Scary Event. Have a vote on whether the Boston tapes should be released to the PSNI, that'd get them into Westminster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:Actually this is Britain.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 09:23
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:As far as I'm aware there is a party constitutional prohibition on taking seats in Westminster and doing so would be grounds for immediate expulsion from the party, changing the constitution would require a general vote from party members at the Ard Fheis - this was necessary back in 1986 when they dropped abstentionism in the ROI and again in 1998 when they modified the rules to allow members to participate in elected institutions "on the island of Ireland" (the Assembly). There was a modified version of the constitution passed a couple of years back but I believe the key clauses on Westminster remained untouched. Historically votes to alter any rules on abstention have been pretty divisive and have been responsible for the various splits within the party - with SF cautiously eyeing the dissident parties trying to snap up disaffected true believers they don't want to poke that bee hive. I get the vibe that they leak rumours every now and then that they might switch it up just to bother Westminster politicians, not because they really will.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
The 'no social housing' thing really is an idiot tax and makes the builders scads of cash. Speaking from experience the no social block will be at least an extra 100k on top of the price of the private flats in the mixed block and will have reduced flat size and amenities (such as play areas and accessibility) compared with the block where the HA/council have had a hand in the specifications. In my case the private block people are paying up to 300k more for smaller flats with no outside space over an industrial use unit. Just to be away from the da poooorrsssss. Edit: it is also beneficial because it enforces the segregation of the complete bellends that buy into that poo poo away from all the normal, cool people. Rolled Cabbage fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Everyone should stop trying to move to london imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Jose posted:Everyone should stop trying to move to london imo Agreed. Then I might be able to afford a house one day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I get the vibe that they leak rumours every now and then that they might switch it up just to bother Westminster politicians, not because they really will. They also do it to wind up the SDLP, supposedly any feelers put out to SF to take their seats originate from Labour who are the SDLP's sister party (their MPs take the Labour whip on an informal basis). SF and the SDLP don't exactly get on what with the former consistently trying to poach the latter's seats. I would hazard a guess that some low ranking members wouldn't necessarily be opposed to assuming their seats as it would let them bring a strong anti-austerity voice to Parliament, after all we know from polling that a significant chunk of members would actually vote to maintain the Union if a border poll was held tomorrow. They'll never admit it in public of course. SF have reaped some pretty major political gains in the ROI using similar tactics and are on track to be the second largest party if polling holds true at the next Irish GE, there's even a chance they could wind up in government if FF bite the bullet and invite them into a coalition in order to resume power (unlikely but possible)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
Loving Africa Chaps posted:Agreed. Then I might be able to afford a house one day. lol you're never getting a whole house unless you inherit it
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Jose posted:lol you're never getting a whole house unless you inherit it things may be changing 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Jose posted:Everyone should stop trying to move to london imo London has a really vibrant downtown and it's full of cool people from all over the world. It's also fun and not depressing. I can see why younger folk are moving here, and I can't blame them. I'm one of them. I'm not saying that other parts of Britain are hell holes full of misery and suffering, but I personally prefer London to other parts of Britain that I've lived in (Edinburgh for one). That and all the cool tech-poo poo happens here anyway. What I don't get about London is how lovely some areas are. Like you can be walking down a gentrified part of town, make a left and boom, it's ghetto-central. There deffo needs to be a movement to increase housing projects, tho. I'd be down with newly built, USA-like suburbs. Non of this ancient-looking brown/red brick old-timey poo poo. awesome-express fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:35
|
|
awesome-express posted:What I don't get about London is how lovely some areas are. Like you can be walking down a gentrified part of town, make a left and boom, it's ghetto-central. There deffo needs to be a movement to increase housing projects, tho. I'd be down with newly built, USA-like suburbs. Non of this ancient-looking brown/red brick old-timey poo poo. Please god no, get out of my city.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:41
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:What I don't get about London is how lovely some areas are. Like you can be walking down a gentrified part of town, make a left and boom, it's ghetto-central. There deffo needs to be a movement to increase housing projects, tho. I'd be down with newly built, USA-like suburbs. Non of this ancient-looking brown/red brick old-timey poo poo. Nobody wants to live in zone 6
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:What I don't get about London is how lovely some areas are. Like you can be walking down a gentrified part of town, make a left and boom, it's ghetto-central. There deffo needs to be a movement to increase housing projects, tho. I'd be down with newly built, USA-like suburbs. Non of this ancient-looking brown/red brick old-timey poo poo. How do you define a ghetto also how is this different to any other city? There's affluent and poor areas in every loving city in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Does anyone know a good source on PFI as in how much we have spent, how much are we exposed to etc. I"be tried the treasury, the ons, the nao and various newspapers and am struggling. I k ow this area is shadowy by design but someone must have done some work on the subject matter that is in someway reliable
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:I'd be down with newly built, USA-like suburbs.  This is one of my favourite TED talks, it turned me off suburbia forever: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia Can suburbia be done right? Maybe, but I haven't seen it. I like to think suburbia is what happens when you take the worst of capitalism (desperate individuality, personal competition, and hoarding private property) and apply it to places where people live. You get people with bubble-like houses, private parks (gardens), private transport (cars), and the only sense of community is enforced by things like public roads (if you, for some reason, opt to walk), centralised education, and shops (though the latter might decline if everyone orders everything online). Suburbia helps to reinforce the very mindset that helped create it. Eventually suburbia will turn into a collection of isolationist mini-states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:London has a really vibrant downtown and it's full of cool people from all over the world. It's also fun and not depressing. I can see why younger folk are moving here, and I can't blame them. I'm one of them. i agree that london would be better if it wasn't for the loving poors ruining bits of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Oh boy, yes I want poors to get out of London, that's exactly what I said. What I want is infrastructure and borough modernisation that doesn't make the grittier parts look like it's 1964. Ever been down to Whitechapel or Edgware? What I said specifically implies better conditions for less well off areas. Disinterested posted:Please god no, get out of my city. Ever been down to Mountain View? That's a great example of well-built suburbia imo. You have the Caltrain that connects to San Francisco, and then you have the BART which you can take and go pretty much anywhere in the Bay area. There are good takes on suburban sprawl, and we need to learn from the good parts and make it better. awesome-express fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
badly designed suburbs suck, well designed suburbs are nice condemning all suburbia because american exurbs are terrible is sort of like condemning high density urban living because of the awful concrete tower blocks councils put up in the 60s and 70s
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
awesome-express posted:Oh boy, yes I want poors to get out of London, that's exactly what I said. Gentrification is a good thing imo, but it only really works for homeowners because the renters will just face higher rents and get forced out. Ghettos are largely created by people getting forced out of gentrified areas aren't they? (genuinely asking, don't know)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
Suburbia is mostly poo poo, and London has a shitload of suburbia in the form of horrifyingly awful commuter towns. It doesn't need more suburbia. It probably could use better suburbia - but I'm not sure it needs suburbia designed for just one social class, especially for poor people. That's how you get the worst kinds of ghettoisation. It's a good thing that London has a lot of areas where you can go quickly from rich to poor (the inequality is not good, but it's way better than actual ghettoisation like Paris has). London is way less ghettoised than a lot of US cities, and definitely less than places like Paris. All I can agree on is that the quality of a lot of the social housing is poo poo, and has to be torn down and rebuilt better. It was not built to last as long as it has. On the other hand, there was loads of nice social housing (such as my mother's flat), but it all got auctioned off to the middle class.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:suburbia in the form of horrifyingly awful commuter towns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 12:47
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Those are exurbs, not suburbs. Suburbs are places like Ealing. Whatever, they perform the same purpose as American suburbia.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
I live in the urbs
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
im an urb yoof
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Rolled Cabbage posted:Edit: it is also beneficial because it enforces the segregation of the complete bellends that buy into that poo poo away from all the normal, cool people. the people buying it are investors who'll never live there anyway. and the increased price is then passed onto renters. and segregation is bad. integration leads to better social cohesion - less people thinking like your bellends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
I was going to suggest that places like One Blackfliers, where they figuratively and pretty much literally live above the city, get a prefix too and get called "supurbia" But that might go to their head
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
OK, the best I can find out PFI is costing us £65bn but I can't find out for how long. Anyone out there make a suggestion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:30
|
|
notaspy posted:OK, the best I can find out PFI is costing us £65bn but I can't find out for how long. Anyone out there make a suggestion? It's designed to be impervious to attempts to work out what it costs.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/29/nhs-weaponised-tories-politicised-health-servicequote:the government is trying to silence the NHS by attempting to stop A&E departments declaring a major incident when they are full up, ambulances stacked at the door and unable to take more patients. quote:Today, another scandal breaks in the British Medical Journal – no surprise to those who followed the purpose of Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Act 2012. Private hospitals are offering huge bribes to NHS doctors to refer their patients to them instead of to NHS hospitals. Labour introduced choice and used private providers to cut waiting lists, but the Lansley act made it compulsory for any service to be put out to tender, so no wonder inducements and backhanders are offered. quote:The NHS has never had so deep a squeeze on spending per capita: on average the NHS since 1948 has had 3.7% a year growth. In the Cameron years it has for the first time averaged 0.6%, the Nuffield Foundation says. NHS England says it needs another £8bn a year by 2020. Neither Labour nor the Tories say how that is to be found. quote:Depicting the general election as the nation’s “tax moment”, the prime minister will say that voters have to choose between a Conservative party committed to tax cuts worth £7bn, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which he will describe as tax-rising “enemies of aspiration”. Cameron will say he is passionate about tax cuts because “it’s your money, not the government’s, and so you should keep it”. The Conservatives have already proposed raising the basic rate tax-free allowance to £12,500 over the lifetime of the next parliament, and raising the higher rate 40p income tax threshold to £50,000, at a cost of £7bn, although the the party has failed to specify exactly how this would be funded, saying the money would come from the £23bn surplus it hopes to run by the end of the decade. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 13:46
|
|
