|
Pissflaps posted:What do you mean by 'admitted'? That implies I've described her in positive terms in the past, which is something that hasn't happened. I don't really care what you admit, just show me all the coverage where May has been criticised over her performance last night, then you can show me there isn't any bias. Shouldn't be hard, what with there being no bias, right?
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Chinese communities in Britain seeeeeeeeem to conform to all the stereotypes of non-integration and non-assimilation that the right vomits at Middle Eastern and South Asian communities in this country, and it's weird because nobody cares or feels threatened by the existence of entire chinatowns with dual-language street signage, and non-english storefronts, and entire streets full of people who aren't white or speaking english.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:What's great about this is how no deal is basically the worst possible outcome and nobody is calling her out on it. Her approach, and the consistent, repeated applause it got, plus the restructuring of the entire Tory election campaign as a Theresa May personality cult, is genuinely a little scary. The old adage about Fascism is that it needs an enemy, and it particularly needs an enemy who is paradoxically both an existential threat to your society (because you need to justify the acquisition of more and more power to protect people against it), while also being weak, contemptible, and laughable because the fascist identity is based around inherent superiority. The EU is apparently an existential threat to Britain (see all the talking points about sovereignity, "taking back control", unrestricted mass migration, blah bah), but also weak enough that May and the rest of the Tories can stoke the national ego by saying they'll tell the EU to go gently caress itself if we don't like the deal. This sort of rhetoric really tickles the fash notion that we are still basically the big dog and can do whatever we want, and it's disconcerting to hear that sort of talk getting the biggest cheers last night. And this is all getting bound up with May making the entire project about her. She wants the power, it's not a party or a government anymore, it's her and her team. I mean thankfully it seems like the shittest, most incompetent attempt at doing a fascism in history, but god damnit she's trying.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/869506124063625221 https://twitter.com/220_d_92_20/status/869510943243476992 https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/869511391203512320
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
May has announced since the u-turn on Dementia Tax that she's going to open up a discussion about capping the amount chargeable. I just want someone to ask her if "no cap is better than a bad cap". EDIT: At the above tweets ^^ - If my choices are buy a car, or swim to China, then your damned right I'm going to buy a car. I'll tell the man selling them I want a lovely efficient saloon with all the bells and whistles, but if worst comes to worst, I'll walk away with a Yaris.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Don't Lol me posted:I don't really care what you admit, just show me all the coverage where May has been criticised over her performance last night, then you can show me there isn't any bias. May is poor but her performance simply wasn't that bad, certainly not bad enough to warrant the sort of coverage that would satisfy you. It will have left her supporters happy in the same way Corbyn's did for you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:May is poor but her performance simply wasn't that bad, certainly not bad enough to warrant the sort of coverage that would satisfy you. It will have left her supporters happy in the same way Corbyn's did for you. Good talk, a lack of proof confirms what I thought, I did find it hard to find anything in the usual right wing rags, and it was all praising May.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Really doubt many watched the debate live. The Sky news youtube only had like 30k viewers. So all people will have to go on is what they're told in the papers...and the papers are just going with JC having an obviously embarrassing fumble on the radio anyway 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Mackers posted:Really doubt many watched the debate live. The Sky news youtube only had like 30k viewers. It was about three million apparently, which is a lot higher than I would have thought.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:or since they're getting rid of term lengths, any time May feels like it they say they're repealing the stupid FTPA. not getting rid of the 5 year upper limit alltogether
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Mackers posted:Really doubt many watched the debate live. I didn't. Feeling pretty lonely ITT today.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Fixed term legislatures with an allowance for early elections in the event of a loss of confidence seem to work well under the Westminster model in Canada and Australia. Really the worst part of the FTPA is that it allowed calling a snap election 'because everyone feels like it' rather than requiring the loss of confidence of the House.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/869532150760165377
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndrewDEvans/status/869298358007062528 lol
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Eh, flexible dissolutions also allow prime ministers to move for elections to secure majorities for key constitutional legislation that they know could not pass that could be seen as a loss of confidence (not in a formal way) and force a resignation but not trigger a dissolution of parliament - allowing them to move to call elections to build support to embolden action rather than cautiously not advancing legislation allows for a bit more divisive action. The FTPA is dumb cause it was designed purely to underwrite the coalition cause the lib dems though the Tories would stab them in the back
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Really the worst part of the FTPA is that it allowed calling a snap election 'because everyone feels like it' rather than requiring the loss of confidence of the House. I see your point, because no opposition can vote against an election, so it needs to be hard for the government to call for one. Nevertheless I think the worst part of the FTPA is that it set on 5 years, which is too long and helps MPs get away with anything, knowing that it'll be water under the bridge by the election and that letting the other side in for 5 years is too awful to contemplate. The Chartist demand for annual parliaments made a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I see your point, because no opposition can vote against an election, so it needs to be hard for the government to call for one. This is basically saying "we recognise this entire system is hosed, but rather than enact substantial reforms we'll just make sure nobody is in power long enough to do anything". It's a fine policy for when your political system is otherwise healthy and stable, but ours really isn't, and all it'll do is preserve it in amber as the parties squabble endlessly and forever, achieving nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:What's great about this is how no deal is basically the worst possible outcome and nobody is calling her out on it. Edit: I would fully support Brexit if it was a televised event where every week May picks up a red telephone and Barnier tells her what the divorce settlement is going to cost. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I can't even imagine 5 year terms. In 5 years we went through 4 prime ministers here. TACD fucked around with this message at 14:34 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
I can't even imagine 5 year terms. In 5 years we went through 4 prime ministers here.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I see your point, because no opposition can vote against an election, so it needs to be hard for the government to call for one. This is crazy. One of the biggest criticisms of politics is that it's almost impossible to get commitment on projects that need long term investment because they have a five year horizon. You'd need an annual spending review as well, except by the time you'd prepared the review and gotten the relevant departments to impact it you'd have a new government in.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Christ can you imagine a progressive government trying to get anything done in a year? Nothing would get done, ever. Well yes I can actually, and then they would generally be reelected (as governments are). Governments don't do everything in their last years, indeed I'd have said they tended to run out of steam. I have no figures with which to support my argument, but: Human Rights Act 1998, National Minimum Wage Act 1998, National Health Service Act 1946, Sex Discrimination Act 1975...
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
I'm sure in years to come a Twitter gif war between sovereign states won't seem surreal, but for now 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Well yes I can actually, and then they would generally be reelected (as governments are). Governments don't do everything in their last years, indeed I'd have said they tended to run out of steam. I have no figures with which to support my argument, but: Human Rights Act 1998, National Minimum Wage Act 1998, National Health Service Act 1946, Sex Discrimination Act 1975... Giving up a couple of months every year for a new election campaign would severely hamper any government's ability to legislate.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I can't even imagine 5 year terms. In 5 years we went through 4 prime ministers here. With any luck we'll be through three in a single year. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Well yes I can actually, and then they would generally be reelected (as governments are). Governments don't do everything in their last years, indeed I'd have said they tended to run out of steam. I have no figures with which to support my argument, but: Human Rights Act 1998, National Minimum Wage Act 1998, National Health Service Act 1946, Sex Discrimination Act 1975... Well I admire your optimism anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Its more likely you would just get the new gov trying to undo everything the last one did in the year they were in.
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:With any luck we'll be through three in a single year. Been there done that too. Gillard-Rudd-Abbott within 3 months.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Well yes I can actually, and then they would generally be reelected (as governments are). Governments don't do everything in their last years, indeed I'd have said they tended to run out of steam. I have no figures with which to support my argument, but: Human Rights Act 1998, National Minimum Wage Act 1998, National Health Service Act 1946, Sex Discrimination Act 1975... HRA came in 18 months after the 97 election, and the minimum wage act came in 14 months after despite being a flagship manifesto promise. It didn't take effect until 1999. You also assume that all of these early victories could be delivered while fighting for re-election. Would we still have dissolution of parliament in the pre election period? What about purdah?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Its more likely you would just get the new gov trying to undo everything the last one did in the year they were in. The whole thing between Labour and the Tories is can Labour build poo poo quicker than the Tories can tear it down, and the answer even now is basically no. Building things means you have to go asking people for stuff, budgeting, negotiating, planning and reaching compromises, and all sorts of tedious poo poo that takes time to do effectively. Under an annual election cycle it'd be the Tories selling off everything or strangling newly implemented policies each year they get in, and Labour failing to rebuild it because they'd get voted out every year they tried to raise money for building new poo poo lol communism bitch fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Giving up a couple of months every year for a new election campaign would severely hamper any government's ability to legislate. There should be rules limiting campaigning anyway. Have the vote in their long summer recess.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
It's no good having constant turnover/turmoil at the top, what is needed is greater meaningful control at a smaller local level which can adjust to local desires and also feed up to the higher larger political structures without needing full national elections. So basically Soviets. But maybe allow more than one party to run.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Christ can you imagine a progressive government trying to get anything done in a year? Nothing would get done, ever. The entire US House of Representatives is re-elected every 2 years, which means Representatives spend approximately 50% of their time in office campaigning for funding to get re-elected. Sounds efficient!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:What's great about this is how no deal is basically the worst possible outcome and nobody is calling her out on it. Tories have a long and proud tradition of driving themselves between a rock and a hard place. Casually marketing a complicated foreign policy issue as a domestic one to secure votes might work - for a while. But you cannot please a target segment of populace that rejects the foreign policy implications, while simulatenously maintaining a solid and good relationship with the partner you demonize to your voter base. Eventually a choice has to be made. Cameron did that mistake in 2015 and 2016, now May is forced to do the same. edit: Obviously this sort of stuff is done all over the place, but Tories are interesting because their target segments currently include both the business types and the former UKIP people. El Perkele fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Watched it. Small wonder that a geezer who actually has to win votes while dealing with a belligerent press/Blairites would do better holding himself in a debate than an unelected technocrat.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The entire US House of Representatives is re-elected every 2 years, which means Representatives spend approximately 50% of their time in office campaigning for funding to get re-elected. Sounds efficient! I think 50% is a very conservative estimate
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Its more likely you would just get the new gov trying to undo everything the last one did in the year they were in. nothing of substance can be accomplished in one year, so the new government wouldn't have to try very hard. annual parliamentary general elections is the stupidest idea since someone said parties should have annual leadership elections.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The entire US House of Representatives is re-elected every 2 years, which means Representatives spend approximately 50% of their time in office campaigning for funding to get re-elected. Sounds efficient! One could argue that that's more a problem with funding rules than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Annual elections with a two term limit for MPs. That's how you make it work.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/869543213622755329
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Get rid of elections, all seats are ballot drawn.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:11
|
|