|
Jeza posted:Trump is very pro-UK, the UK is in the middle of Brexit and looking for a stronger relationship with the US. Ah yes, the very pro-UK Donald Trump whose cabinet have vowed to backshaft us as hard as possible in any trade deal. Trump doesn't want to help us. He wants to own us. E: 21st February 1848 - first publication of The Communist Manifesto. Jedit fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 21, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Similarly, since parliament has power over whether or not we go to war, Blair did set a precedent of consulting parliament which Cameron followed, but there is no particular reason that May or her successor couldn't ignore that if they had the political will. Keep digging this hole if you like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Trump doesn't want to help us. He wants to own us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
ronya posted:it seems to be doing well enough, as a party - it is successfully bridging factions that hate and despise each other, even though this hatred is so deep that it totally incapacitates the party from yielding anything like a consensus ideological outlook I'd say it's the opposite phenomenon to UKIP. While campaigning for Brexit was all that truly held UKIP together ideologically, the pro and anti-EU split was one of the biggest in the Tory party. Now that it's a fait accompli, it's necessarily less of a sticking point because it's soon to be water under the bridge. I guess it's hard to manufacture an equally relevant split in such a short space of time. I would assume the details of Brexit will cause some issues, and in the medium-long term there will be a kind of wets/dries replay from the Thatcher years in relation to public policy. It is a strange situation because there's been a drip-drip shift in Conservative rhetoric towards the centre for a long time, but Brexit was a big swing towards the swivel-eyed backbench of the party, and a massive blow to the more moderate side who are currently just going along with the "will of the people". And it's to be taken in context with the big global rightward lurch we're seeing worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
ronya posted:it seems to be doing well enough, as a party - it is successfully bridging factions that hate and despise each other, even though this hatred is so deep that it totally incapacitates the party from yielding anything like a consensus ideological outlook imagine if we had PR and the major parties could split
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ah yes, the very pro-UK Donald Trump whose cabinet have vowed to backshaft us as hard as possible in any trade deal. I'll wait and see on this one. In my opinion the right wing in America views the breakup/disruption of the EU as a favourable outcome, plus has traditionally supported the UK an ideological vassal state. It is also one of the only reasonable beneficial foreign policy relationship outcomes Trump can achieve and brag about. What matters most is how the UK will swing on Russia. I have a feeling if the UK is served a lovely deal in the EU, they will be forced into a warmer relationship with Russia/USA (and China on the side) as a kind of unholy political/economic pact. Simply out of pragmatism, and because it kicks the EU in the nuts. e: what im saying is prepare to hold your nose for the foreseeable future
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
look at what happens when a country gets a real, good, long term left wing government  https://www.thenation.com/article/ecuadors-left-wing-success-story/ quote: The results for the decade of left government in Ecuador (2007-16) include a 38 percent reduction in poverty and a 47 percent reduction in extreme poverty. Social spending as a percentage of GDP doubled, including large increases in spending on education and healthcare. Educational enrollment increased sharply for ages 17 and under, and spending on higher education as a percent of GDP became the highest in Latin America. Average annual growth of income per capita was much higher than in the prior 26 years (1.5 versus 0.6 percent), and inequality was considerably reduced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
left wing?! excuse me comrade you should have jumped off the bolivarian cliff too:quote:With the possible exception of Venezuela, the reforms of progressive governments were only designed to confront US hegemony and mitigate the effects of neoliberalism. They did little to challenge the more fundamental structures of capitalism in these countries. The main targets for nationalization were foreign assets, while the structures of power within Latin American countries were mostly left intact. (psst. it is dollarization that mitigates one of the major weaknesses of latam left-wing ideological perspectives, which normally have an allergy to the notion of budgetary limits that would astonish a 1980s liverpudlian Militant. The disciplined adherence to the dollar is arguably one of Correa's greatest successes - it made the overwhelming need for hard currency into a tangible reality rather than a confabulable abstraction) ronya fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Have we discussed the fact that Milo Yabbadabbadoo was taken out by the most British possible scandal: defending paedophilia, yet? also thanks to this here forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Jeza posted:what im saying is prepare to hold your nose for the foreseeable future No. gently caress the quality of the trade deal. Rolling out the red carpet for a far right reactionary who has admitted to sexual assault is not something I'll hold my nose over thanks. We're not dealing with just a regular right wing politician. We're talking to a spiritual successor to Franco & Pinochet without the Catholicism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Jose posted:imagine if we had PR and the major parties could split I think the Tories like tradition far too much to have a proper split
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
The government have scored a very narrow win on mixed-sex civil partnerships, saying that they can still prohibit them temporarily, but an indefinite prohibition may run counter to Convention rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I'll wait and see on this one. In my opinion the right wing in America views the breakup/disruption of the EU as a favourable outcome, plus has traditionally supported the UK an ideological vassal state. It is also one of the only reasonable beneficial foreign policy relationship outcomes Trump can achieve and brag about. What matters most is how the UK will swing on Russia. I have a feeling if the UK is served a lovely deal in the EU, they will be forced into a warmer relationship with Russia/USA (and China on the side) as a kind of unholy political/economic pact. Simply out of pragmatism, and because it kicks the EU in the nuts. No. No pragmatism, no deal. He is an extreme right wing racist with literal white supremacists on his advisory team. I would rather leave this country forever and give up citizenship if necessary than take scraps from his table. And scraps is all we will get, be assured. Trump is a businessman, not a statesman, and a dishonest businessman at that. And Theresa May doesn't even have the aspirations of Satan: she would rather serve in hell than rule in heaven, so long as the devil lets her be evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No. gently caress the quality of the trade deal. Rolling out the red carpet for a far right reactionary who has admitted to sexual assault is not something I'll hold my nose over thanks. I don't see how you have any influence or choice in the matter unless you are strategically placed to do something about it. I also think it's a little lurid to draw the comparison with unelected dictators who oversaw mass executions and concentration camps, but obviously I'll give Trump the chance to fully embrace that role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The government have scored a very narrow win on mixed-sex civil partnerships, saying that they can still prohibit them temporarily, but an indefinite prohibition may run counter to Convention rights. Seeing them stood outside the court with "straight equality" placards, I don't think I could care less about their stupid case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Agreed. I hope the court costs bankrupt them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't understand. This was at a barbecue. Ah I see - a spitroast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I don't see how you have any influence or choice in the matter unless you are strategically placed to do something about it. I also think it's a little lurid to draw the comparison with unelected dictators who oversaw mass executions and concentration camps, but obviously I'll give Trump the chance to fully embrace that role. don't think you'll be waiting long https://twitter.com/IsaacWebster/status/833712507260801024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
What difference does it actually make whether a dictator is elected or not? This has always puzzled me. Are tyrants made less tyrannical by virtue of democratic mandate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Seeing them stood outside the court with "straight equality" placards, I don't think I could care less about their stupid case. If you're a pre-op trans and are attracted/get married to the opposite sex, I can kinda see the point? Maybe? But I guess you can still just get normal-married anyway, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What difference does it actually make whether a dictator is elected or not? This has always puzzled me. Are tyrants made less tyrannical by virtue of democratic mandate? Hence the defining line between liberal and illiberal democracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What difference does it actually make whether a dictator is elected or not? This has always puzzled me. Are tyrants made less tyrannical by virtue of democratic mandate? Well, it's simple. Democracy and tyranny are natural enemies. You can't become a true despot without first dismantling the democratic structure. Unelected dictators are far, far more common than elected ones, so it's just a game of probability. If you're elected democratically, the odds of you going full dictator historically are a lot less than if you just busted into high office on the back of a military coup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What difference does it actually make whether a dictator is elected or not? This has always puzzled me. Are tyrants made less tyrannical by virtue of democratic mandate? Personally part of it is seeing a fellow democratically elected country slip towards tyranny, both because that's bad in and of itself (especially when it's a country as powerful as the US) and it sets a really nasty precedent, especially when your own democratic government is clearly looking to suck up and take cues from the fascist one. Obviously tyranny around the world is a terrible situation, but Saudi Arabia continuing to be Saudi Arabia is unfortunately just the status quo for the time being. Trump's election and actions since then are something that demands urgent attention to prevent things from getting out of hand really fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:If you're a pre-op trans and are attracted/get married to the opposite sex, I can kinda see the point? Maybe? Because the religious right have made the term 'marriage' more loaded than just a union between two people by being arseholes about it, so people can then be free to choose as they are equal. With a possible end game of everyone else realising that making the distinction is pointless and just pass marriage for all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:Because the religious right have made the term 'marriage' more loaded than just a union between two people by being arseholes about it, so people can then be free to choose as they are equal. With a possible end game of everyone else realising that making the distinction is pointless and just pass marriage for all. This post confuses me we already have marriage for all and civil marriage has been a thing forever and I don't see the 'religious right' being a particularly strong voice anyway. I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
TinTower posted:The government have scored a very narrow win on mixed-sex civil partnerships, saying that they can still prohibit them temporarily, but an indefinite prohibition may run counter to Convention rights. Is there a material difference between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Personally part of it is seeing a fellow democratically elected country slip towards tyranny, both because that's bad in and of itself (especially when it's a country as powerful as the US) and it sets a really nasty precedent, especially when your own democratic government is clearly looking to suck up and take cues from the fascist one. When your current leader did not win the leadership in an election, took charge of her party in what was only not a coup because the previous leader jumped before he was pushed, is a serial violator of human rights that wants to take the nation out of every treaty involving them, and is busy acting as if she has a mandate to do anything... That is not a precedent you want to follow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Is there a material difference between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding? You can have a civil marriage at lots of places other than registry offices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Well, it's simple. Democracy and tyranny are natural enemies. You can't become a true despot without first dismantling the democratic structure. Unelected dictators are far, far more common than elected ones, so it's just a game of probability. If you're elected democratically, the odds of you going full dictator historically are a lot less than if you just busted into high office on the back of a military coup. I don't entirely agree with this. The US is a democracy by most metrics and yet the power of the state is hugely centralised and controls a vast repressive apparatus (along with a bloated military) that can be directed almost at will against anybody arbitrarily considered an enemy of state. For Trump (or any of his predecessors) to be a tyrant he doesn't really have to do much in the way of dismantling and America's done a great job of terrorising the world and many of its own citizens since World War 2 while maintaining itself as the very model of a modern liberal democracy. I guess what I'm trying to say in my typically rambling and unfocused way is that I worry that by fixating on Trump the person or the idea that unelected dictators are qualitatively different, we end up individualising a systemic problem. The problem being that liberal democracy is just a veneer of respectability, a rubber stamp of manufactured consent for a killing machine every bit as brutal and repressive and unaccountable as the worst of tinpot dictatorships.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:Because the religious right have made the term 'marriage' more loaded than just a union between two people by being arseholes about it, so people can then be free to choose as they are equal. With a possible end game of everyone else realising that making the distinction is pointless and just pass marriage for all. In this instance I don't think you can blame solely "the religious right". Marriage's historical connotations are essentially those of treating women as property, and it's not exactly ancient history either - for example men were still mounting successful rape defences on the basis that "she's married to me" in the UK in the 1990s. Even if it seems a distinction without a difference given that marriage and civil partnership are close to legally equivalent, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to distance yourself from an institution like that. Civil partnerships provide the legal benefits without the unpleasant baggage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You can have a civil marriage at lots of places other than registry offices. Oh I know that, I just always think of any secular wedding as being a "registry office" wedding. Probably showing my age and upbringing a bit there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Is there a material difference between a civil partnership and a registry office wedding? That all stems from what happens when you sit a bunch of judges around asking questions like "just how do lesbians have sex anyway" without asking one. Civil partnerships don't talk about adultery at all, and have a more civil law inspired means of dissolution. The best reason for opening up civil partnerships to all couples is the simple one that it was intended to be anyway. All language throughout the act is gender neutral apart from four words right at the beginning, and a big reason for those four words was the religious set believing that if mixed sex partners had options other than marriage then none of them would get married. Which strikes me as a bad argument because marriage rates had been falling at the time for a while, and if your best argument to encourage someone to do something is to ban all alternatives then maybe that thing wasn't so great anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Contacted the council and they can't give me an estimate of when my wheelie bins will be delivered lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
ronya posted:then again, the traditional analysis also holds that Labour is more cohesive and disciplined than the Tories, even though the crack started with Benn and that was how many decades ago now
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Jose posted:Contacted the council and they can't give me an estimate of when my wheelie bins will be delivered lol Sounds like contacting them was a 'waste' of your time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Jose posted:Contacted the council and they can't give me an estimate of when my wheelie bins will be delivered lol how big are these new wheelie bins going to be? e/ are they painted in black and white?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Even in the 20s and 30s, labour was quite fractious. It's a big tent. That's OK. So long as its overall aim remains the betterment of life for all, we're golden. You know where else there is a big tent? At the circus. Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Well, it's simple. Democracy and tyranny are natural enemies. You can't become a true despot without first dismantling the democratic structure. Unelected dictators are far, far more common than elected ones, so it's just a game of probability. If you're elected democratically, the odds of you going full dictator historically are a lot less than if you just busted into high office on the back of a military coup. I think that is a historical and, demonstrably, outmoded perception. It is not necessary to dismantle the democratic structure, you can instead simply seek to own all of the inputs into it. You don't need to prevent participation when you can make people participate in the way you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You know where else there is a big tent? At the circus. Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
big taint
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 18:09
|
|
