|
Cerv posted:I'd rather subsidise public transport to hospitals than parking. It might not still be the case, but scroungers like myself get to claim back hospital travel charges.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I'm imagining Liz coming through the door at quarter to 5 like a Headteacher into a room full of rowdy students and a sobbing substitute and how they all suddenly stop loving around and sit down quietly just to be told they're here until they finish their work, to which they reply with a really quiet 'Yes miss'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Secondly, Labour MPs are elected with lower turnouts, so lots of Conservative votes are wasted, because boundaries are not drawn up according to active voters but people. That's partially a consequence of being in a safe seat and being deliberately excluded from feeling involved in the political system by successive governments; if you combined all the Sunderland seats, then over time the number of registered voters would probably tick down and down and down until you're left with the whole north of England only having one MP. On a note of principle, it's also important to note that the MPs are representing their constituencies and do more, in theory, than just reflect the dominant political leanings of their voters. Making MPs about voters not population is a big symbolic change. Zephro posted:I wonder if the best universities will soon go the way of the posher private schools, where locals are priced out and it's mostly a place for rich foreigners to send their kids to be educated. That's more true of places like Durham and St Andrews than it is of Oxford and Cambridge; you can't get into the latter through sufficient coaching alone but, above a certain level of ineptitude, you WILL be able to get into somewhere like Durham. Zephro posted:There have been polls recently reporting that more people want prices to fall than to rise, and the press has done a complete 180 over the past five years, from "HOUSE PRICES UP, HOORAY WE'RE ALL RICH" to "HOUSE PRICES UP AGAIN, CRISIS INTENSIFIES". Probably because the current generation of reporters are people who are taking the housing crisis right on the chin. Only in some papers. The Express the other day had a headline about how wonderful it was that house prices were going to be going up 25% by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:I think this is a stately horrible phrase. Plus, your not Oor Wullie. Baby steps. The lad's 18 and doesn't even drink. I've tried and failed as an elder brother. E: oh and he's into a bunch of gamergate crap. Makes it easy to wind him up, I keep bringing up how his favourite show (band of brothers) is only about straight white men and telling him I'm making donations to Sarkeesian in his name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The position of speaker is supposed to keep order in the house but he's also sort of required to abide by the conventions or else they can unelect him, I think. Wait they can DO that? I've never been 100% sure how the speaker is chosen, but it seems kind of silly that they could try to remove him for doing his job. (Basically everything about Parliament starts with 'it seems kind of silly'. I can't wait for the building to collapse around their ears from poor repair so they can finally loving modernise a bit. Preferably with most of them still inside.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Wait they can DO that? I dunno if they can literally sack him but they can certainly refuse to elect him next parliament. That was the original idea to get rid of Bercow. Speakers are only appointed for a parliament, they just run longer generally because traditionally to keep the job you just have to ask to keep it and everyone says ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:(Basically everything about Parliament starts with 'it seems kind of silly'. I can't wait for the building to collapse around their ears from poor repair so they can finally loving modernise a bit. Preferably with most of them still inside.) No see it's established convention that the building does not collapse, the Queen would never give it permission to
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I dunno if they can literally sack him but they can certainly refuse to elect him next parliament. That was the original idea to get rid of Bercow. Speakers are only appointed for a parliament, they just run longer generally because traditionally to keep the job you just have to ask to keep it and everyone says ok. Refusing to elect him next Parliament seems less of a threat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Angepain posted:No see it's established convention that the building does not collapse, the Queen would never give it permission to
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Refusing to elect him next Parliament seems less of a threat. It is less of an immediate threat but the original idea I believe was to collude within the tory ranks to elect someone more favorable to the party. Because the speaker is selected by election from within the house of commons, there's nothing actually stopping majority governments from just electing their favorite speaker except for backbench rebellion. The only thing that keeps the speaker impartial is, as always, tradition and the fact that the MPs are supposed to vote for the best speaker not the speaker who will serve their party best. As there was some talk of stopping that and voting in a more favorable candidate, Bercow may reasonably be concerned that if he doesn't tread somewhat carefully he might effectively help destroy the office of speaker in practice by turning it into a puppet of the government. Of course if we had an actual constitution this wouldn't be a problem. But as always, parliament can do what it wants when it wants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Just watched yesterday's QT on iPlayer and thought Victoria Coren was super good at taking Chuka on over his bullshit. I met her a couple of times playing poker and she's def a really nice genuine person. Also exhibits good judgement in husbands. Give her a peerage imo. Just watched this and  Cutting right to the chase and telling chuka to do one, strikes are goodFirst half was weird because Peter Hitchens was actually talking sense for a bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Baby steps. The lad's 18 and doesn't even drink. I've tried and failed as an elder brother. It sounds like your brother might be on the right track tbh. I saw this and thought of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mc13fBlhOg
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
The mum itt who wants to stop her lad from watching porn is weird, That's what teenage boys do, all of them. They know it's unrealistic and it doesn't have any impact on their actual relationship forming ability. Stop monitoring your child's wanking habits you feminist puritan weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Gonna run that post through our old friend WillBadGuy
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Prince John posted:The article I linked described a possé of MPs who viewed it as their job to torpedo these bills, as they view them as being emotionally driven rather than high quality legislation. So what? If he disagrees with the bill then he is free to vote against it or propose an amendment. Abusing the parliamentary process because a well-intentioned bill (that hasn't even been properly debated yet) isn't quite perfect is a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Gonna run that post through our old friend WillBadGuy I suggest using Harrry (genuine child voice)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Scikar posted:So what? If he disagrees with the bill then he is free to vote against it or propose an amendment. Abusing the parliamentary process because a well-intentioned bill (that hasn't even been properly debated yet) isn't quite perfect is a loving joke. Indeed. If he has good reasons, then he should present them fairly, and let people vote fairly. Not torpedo the whole process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:The mum itt who wants to stop her lad from watching porn is weird, That's what teenage boys do, all of them. They know it's unrealistic and it doesn't have any impact on their actual relationship forming ability. Stop monitoring your child's wanking habits you feminist puritan weirdo. Yeah I mean you turned out okay, pimpimg your wife so you can get a visa is perfectly normal behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Yeah I mean you turned out okay, pimpimg your wife so you can get a visa is perfectly normal behaviour. You are oddly obsessed with me and the missus despite knowing very little about us, and also seem to assume that married women do not have the agency to make their own choices and decisions in life, JFairfax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I guess Jacob Rees-Mogg is the 'master' of the filibuster in modern times. This is slightly unfair, The bill Rees-Mogg filibustered was a ridiculously pointless, nonsense bill that was just going to put the UK on Central European Time rather than GMT, also his filibuster was awesome as he tried to amend the bill to give Somerset his own time zone. Rees-Mogg is a Tory poo poo but he's the best sort of Tory poo poo. Edit: My mistake he also filibustered the sustainable livestock bill which is shittier, still parliament is far more interesting and fun when he's speaking. StoneOfShame fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Scikar posted:So what? If he disagrees with the bill then he is free to vote against it or propose an amendment. Abusing the parliamentary process because a well-intentioned bill (that hasn't even been properly debated yet) isn't quite perfect is a loving joke. Alternatively, no-one can expect the entire House to attend literally every single one of the thousands of divisions and debates and trying to sneak in your pet private bill under the radar during a time when Parliament's quiet (for example the previous Friday there was a private bill to make the 2% GDP defence funding pledge binding in law - pretty momentous, but just 17 MPs voted on it. The Deputy Speaker decided it couldn't pass because so few MPs were there) is also insincere procedural chicanery that it's quite proper to catch and dismiss. If you're interested you can read the debate in question. Having a look over it I don't see what in it would even constitute "filibustering" anyway - there are no wild digressions on gardening or reading from Harry Potter, it's all focused on the issue with interventions and speeches by multiple Labour MPs as well. Few private bills ever become law (especially because many are demanding novel initiatives that are not paid for in the Budget and just can't be funded), and the sponsors of these bills know it. They do however influence debate in other areas, something a minister acknowledges when he discusses changing the wording of guidelines towards the end of the debate. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Alternatively, no-one can expect the entire House to attend literally every single one of the thousands of divisions and debates and trying to sneak in your pet private bill under the radar during a time when Parliament's quiet (for example the previous Friday there was a private bill to make the 2% GDP defence funding pledge binding in law - pretty momentous, but just 17 MPs voted on it. The Deputy Speaker decided it couldn't pass because so few MPs were there) is also insincere procedural chicanery that it's quite proper to catch and dismiss. Well, kind of, but the solution to one bit of parliamentary bollix isn't a different piece of parliamentary bollix. Well, it wouldn't be, ideally. I assume this being the UK there is no actually written stuff about how many MPs is too few for a quorum, so whilst I'm glad the Speaker told everyone to jog on, it's a bit daft that they can just say "Yep, doesn't count".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Maybe we should stop having our nation state run on barely-remembered rules from 700 years ago that didn't even make sense at the time. Wait let me put it in Tory language: CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS The Saurus fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
requiring a quorum is not a rare parliamentary quirk, it's a basic feature of committee decisionmaking
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Hey UKMT I haven't been paying much attention to UK politics in a couple months because its all so dreadful but I've been rereading Orwell lately and it turns out he's at least 60% more balla than I had previous thought; I had previously thought him very balla indeed. Anyway a friend linked me to an essay of his I'm sure has been posted at some time in the annals of time but I hadn't read it before and its an incredibly pro read from which I shall select some choice morsels I think are relevant to this day: http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/lionunicorn.html quote:Here are a couple of generalizations about England that would be accepted by almost all observers. (...) They have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic ‘world-view’. Nor is this because they are ‘practical’, as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. (...) But they have a certain power of acting without taking thought. Their world-famed hypocrisy - their double-faced attitude towards the Empire, for instance - is bound up with this. Also, in moments of supreme crisis the whole nation can suddenly draw together and act upon a species of instinct, really a code of conduct which is understood by almost everyone, though never formulated.The phrase that Hitler coined for the Germans, ‘a sleep-walking people’, would have been better applied to the English. Not that there is anything to be proud of in being called a sleep-walker. quote:Why is the goose-step not used in England? There are, heaven knows, plenty of army officers who would be only too glad to introduce some such thing. It is not used because the people in the street would laugh. Beyond a certain point, military display is only possible in countries where the common people dare not laugh at the army.(...) In the British army the drill is rigid and complicated, full of memories of the eighteenth century, but without definite swagger; the march is merely a formalized walk. It belongs to a society which is ruled by the sword, no doubt, but a sword which must never be taken out of the scabbard. quote:
quote:
Sorry for the wall of text but its pretty hard to pick good bits without just pasting hundreds of words at a time. A+ Would read again. Wheres the 2010s Orwell at?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Alternatively, no-one can expect the entire House to attend literally every single one of the thousands of divisions and debates and trying to sneak in your pet private bill under the radar during a time when Parliament's quiet (for example the previous Friday there was a private bill to make the 2% GDP defence funding pledge binding in law - pretty momentous, but just 17 MPs voted on it. The Deputy Speaker decided it couldn't pass because so few MPs were there) is also insincere procedural chicanery that it's quite proper to catch and dismiss. All perfectly reasonable but it seems weird that apparently the only way to ensure that a stupid bill won't pass is to chat crap until there's no time to properly vote on it. Shouldn't the debates and votes be the process that weeds out the poo poo anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:The mum itt who wants to stop her lad from watching porn is weird, That's what teenage boys do, all of them. They know it's unrealistic and it doesn't have any impact on their actual relationship forming ability. Stop monitoring your child's wanking habits you feminist puritan weirdo. You're talking about people watching porn before they have a fully fledged idea of what women are and what sex is. Show a 3 year old a violent film, and they'll start acting out that violence, because they don't have the capacity to understand that it's pretend and that they shouldn't do it. Show a 13 year old porn and they'll wank all day, and of course they'll start to objectify women, because they don't have the capacity to separate wanting know a woman and wanting to gently caress her. poo poo, there are adults that can't do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:You are oddly obsessed with me and the missus despite knowing very little about us, and also seem to assume that married women do not have the agency to make their own choices and decisions in life, JFairfax. I just find it hilarious that you were happy to encourage your wife to engage in sex work so she could earn $19k a year in order for you to get a visa for the USA, what with the min income requirement for a marriage visa in a two person household being 125% of the poverty line. That's pretty funny, I mean poo poo, you can make that in wages and tips in most bars here easy, without resorting to goons using her as a cum dumpster or whatever the gently caress you did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:You're talking about people watching porn before they have a fully fledged idea of what women are and what sex is. Show a 3 year old a violent film, and they'll start acting out that violence, because they don't have the capacity to understand that it's pretend and that they shouldn't do it. Show a 13 year old porn and they'll wank all day, and of course they'll start to objectify women, because they don't have the capacity to separate wanting know a woman and wanting to gently caress her. poo poo, there are adults that can't do that. I think the point is that countering any negative influence with education is going to be more effective than prohibition. Easily accessible hosed-up porn is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas lovely attitudes towards women go back ages, so it seems a little superficial to blame the porn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
jabby posted:I think the point is that countering any negative influence with education is going to be more effective than prohibition. Easily accessible hosed-up porn is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas lovely attitudes towards women go back ages, so it seems a little superficial to blame the porn. Not blaming porn, but it can't help. It just adds another unrealistic expectation of what women should look like and behave, right down to how much pubic hair they should have, and what their vagina should look like. I'm talking about kids watching porn here, mind. I think adults (should) have the capacity to separate fantasy from reality. But absolutely, there needs to be some education on feminism, at least. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and they poo poo hot on racism, but nothing on sexism oddly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
EvilGenius posted:Not blaming porn, but it can't help. It just adds another unrealistic expectation of what women should look like and behave, right down to how much pubic hair they should have, and what their vagina should look like. I'm talking about kids watching porn here, mind. I think adults (should) have the capacity to separate fantasy from reality. I guess it depends where you draw the line between kid and adult. I feel like having internet filters is fine when you have 6 year olds you want to prevent stumbling across 2 girls 1 cup, but once your kid starts actively trying to circumvent it because they want to look at boobs you should probably give up and just make sure they are educated. Otherwise you end up in a rather adversarial position if you have to punish your kids for trying to jack off and do 'random browser history checks' (which are more insulting to the intelligence than anything). I guess I can't help but think a lot of 'porn blame' comes from the same kind of mentality as 'violent films make you violent'. There's no actual proof that people are bad at separating fantasy from reality, but its convenient to name a scape goat so you don't have to blame anything bigger like society or education.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
edit: calmed down.
hookerbot 5000 fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Jabby's post was perfectly reasonable and wasn't specifically targeting you. Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Lol if you don't know better than to ever question (or even suggest that you might disagree with) a parent's chosen method of raising their kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Hey UKMT I haven't been paying much attention to UK politics in a couple months because its all so dreadful but I've been rereading Orwell lately and it turns out he's at least 60% more balla than I had previous thought; I had previously thought him very balla indeed. Orwell could be a really beautiful writer quote:But talk to foreigners, read foreign books or newspapers, and you are brought back to the same thought. Yes, there is something distinctive and recognizable in English civilization. It is a culture as individual as that of Spain. It is somehow bound up with solid breakfasts and gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red pillar-boxes. It has a flavour of its own. Moreover it is continuous, it stretches into the future and the past, there is something in it that persists, as in a living creature. What can the England of 1940 have in common with the England of 1840? But then, what have you in common with the child of five whose photograph your mother keeps on the mantelpiece? Nothing, except that you happen to be the same person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ.quote:George Osborne is at loggerheads with the work and pensions secretary over proposals to cut spending on universal credit by more than £1bn a year. The chancellor is considering the move – which Iain Duncan Smith fears could drastically undermine the effectiveness of universal credit – as a means of partially funding his anticipated U-turn on tax credits. How much of a oval office do you have to be that Iain Duncan Smith is saying you're taking too much away from people on benefits?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
jabby posted:I guess it depends where you draw the line between kid and adult. I feel like having internet filters is fine when you have 6 year olds you want to prevent stumbling across 2 girls 1 cup, but once your kid starts actively trying to circumvent it because they want to look at boobs you should probably give up and just make sure they are educated. Otherwise you end up in a rather adversarial position if you have to punish your kids for trying to jack off and do 'random browser history checks' (which are more insulting to the intelligence than anything). I'm sure I read some research recently that said watching violent films does seem to increase aggression - but it doesn't translate to real world violent criminality. I think it may be the same with porn. Yes if you watch lots of porn it might give you skewed ideas about sex. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum, you'd need to have all sorts of other stuff going on with unhealthy attitudes to women/sex/relationships etc. for it to translate into real world lovely behaviour. Otherwise you might just get a slightly rude awakening when you first get naked with someone, and then probably learn and move on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Jesus loving Christ. FFS if anything the taper rate should be lower. Given the way UC works it is better than JSA, especially for the under 25s who wouldn't get tax credits, so lets blow a hole in something that actually works a little bit .
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Jesus loving Christ. The taper rates were already a lot higher than 65% for many people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcPdayQWCR4 Labour should propose that the taper rate is never allowed to be higher than the top rate of tax (maybe through some kind of totally meaningless 'make work pay' charter). Force Tory shits to come on TV and defend why 50% is a disincentive for the rich to work harder and get on but if you're a poor working family then 65-95% isn't a disincentive to work harder, get on and do the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 12:21
|
|
