UKMT September 2019 - A Fish-Abandoning Government

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September 2019 - A Fish-Abandoning Government

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

xtothez posted:

It's worth pointing out that the reason he's had to act without precedent is because of this. May and especially Johnson have gone to great lengths to bend the rules as far as possible as they lack the voting majority to do things properly. Tricks like ignoring pairing or proroguing parliament for over a month is stuff that was always technically possible, but before Brexit would have been career suicide for any PM to actually try.

To be fair, it's killed May's career and Johnson's isn't looking too stable right now :v:

# ? Sep 8, 2019 12:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 20:47

Pesky Splinter: Feb 16, 2011; A worried pug.

This is the MP replacing Rudd as DWP Sec:
https://twitter.com/KeithCameron5/status/1170626980309606400
For all it matters for the micro-seconds until we have a GE.

Never heard of her either. Just another one whose personal evils are dwarfed by the ones higher up the Tory food chain:

quote:

On 6 July 2011, she defended Rebekah Brooks over the News of the World's involvement in the news media phone hacking scandal. She said a "witch hunt" was developing against Brooks, and that simply to say Brooks was editor of the newspaper at the time was not enough evidence against her. Coffey became a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into the hacking scandal in 2012. In that committee, she declined to support any motions critical of Rupert and James Murdoch.

[...]

Coffey's decision to author a paper for the Free Enterprise Group recommending pensioners should be forced to pay National Insurance provoked a backlash among older constituents, who claimed that in an already tough economic environment, it was wrong to tax pensioners further. However, she said that she had "no regrets writing about National Insurance" and that it was "a policy proposal � it is by no means, at this stage, anymore than that."

Coffey also faced criticism from Suffolk residents over her support for the Government's proposal to sell off forestry and woodland in public ownership, in 2011. Protestors argued that "previous experience shows us that when private landowners come in they close car parks and make access as difficult as possible."Although Coffey voted for the bill, the proposal was afterward dropped by the government.

In October 2016, she was criticised by the then Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron for accepting hospitality worth �890 from Ladbrokes after supporting the gambling industry in parliament as part of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Coffey denied that she had been "influenced in her considerations on matters of related policy by any hospitality received".

In January 2016, an amendment intended to force rented homes to be maintained as "fit for human habitation" was defeated in parliament. Coffey was one of the 72 MPs voting against it who were themselves landlords who derived an income from a property.

Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Sep 8, 2019

# ? Sep 8, 2019 12:43

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Typical tory, hogging all the punctuation.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 12:45

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

Fair enough, parliament's probably the main UK intended audience.

I think this strongman stuff plays more in the context of EU power dynamics also. In the EU27, France is certainly seen as having legitimate interest in how brexit's done, with the geography and infrastructure and trade stuff and everything, and from that perspective, Macron's hard line can be defended as him defending France's legitimate interests: no UK change in position, no point in more talks etc.

However, France's interests won't get anywhere as much support as Ireland's. Most EU states are tiny and brexit's driving worries among small countries that Germany and France will just roll over their interests, since the UK's been seen as a counterweight to that. Vetos work both ways and unless brexit is the end of Macron's EU ambitions, he can't be the one responsible for building walls on their island.

...and while this sounds like it might undercut Macron's brexit rhetoric, it can work the other way. No matter hard and uncompromising he is on brexit, he'll always be able to safely retreat, citing his country's respect and support for Ireland's sovereignty. He'd even be able to frame it as a sacrifice on his part in favour of EU priorities, and cash it in when next there's some big thingy being talked about

Legitimately all good points here. Strange that I didn't consider the counterweight bit, given that that's been the constant of my own country's entire membership and we only joined in the first place because the UK did.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 12:57

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Wolfsbane posted:

2^7 is fine. 2^8 is negative zero, which can occasionally be an issue.

At the risk of looking seriously petty, negative zero is a float thing - signed integers simply go from -(2^x) to (2^x)-1

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:02

triangular man: Feb 13, 2015

Thanks for the responses so far, hope there's more! For some reason I'm finding the Speaker position one of the more interesting aspects to read about. This is probably helped by the current Speaker being so dramatic.

So let me see if I'm understanding right. Bercow is still an MP as well as the Speaker, so he still represents a constituency, and that's what some other MPs want to change in order to remove him as speaker? So if that's right, does that mean the speaker still votes on things as an MP? How would they try to unseat him as an MP? Is that a local election vote, part of the possible general election vote, or some internal party mechanism? Again, if it's an internal party thing, and he's technically not a Tory now as he is the Speaker, how does that work?

I was under the impression that the speaker is neutral in things like that? I mean, I kind of knew that if there's no majority on a thing they're voting for, the speaker can cast a deciding vote and that's by precedent usually a vote to keep the status quo on whatever the vote is about so there's more debate. So, the speaker won't vote to change anything because that wouldn't be neutral, right?

I think I might be getting muddled up here. Again, I am sure these are basics I have no understanding about so thanks for being nice!

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:11

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

triangular man posted:

Thanks for the responses so far, hope there's more! For some reason I'm finding the Speaker position one of the more interesting aspects to read about. This is probably helped by the current Speaker being so dramatic.

So let me see if I'm understanding right. Bercow is still an MP as well as the Speaker, so he still represents a constituency, and that's what some other MPs want to change in order to remove him as speaker? So if that's right, does that mean the speaker still votes on things as an MP? How would they try to unseat him as an MP? Is that a local election vote, part of the possible general election vote, or some internal party mechanism? Again, if it's an internal party thing, and he's technically not a Tory now as he is the Speaker, how does that work?

I was under the impression that the speaker is neutral in things like that? I mean, I kind of knew that if there's no majority on a thing they're voting for, the speaker can cast a deciding vote and that's by precedent usually a vote to keep the status quo on whatever the vote is about so there's more debate. So, the speaker won't vote to change anything because that wouldn't be neutral, right?

I think I might be getting muddled up here. Again, I am sure these are basics I have no understanding about so thanks for being nice!

He's an MP and represents a constituency. They want to remove him by running someone against him who will unseat him as an MP because only MPs can be Speaker. By convention, parties don't contest the Speaker's seat because they're supposed to be neutral anyway. There is no other way to remove him as Speaker beyond him resigning.

They usually don't vote, but if there's a tie they then vote and usually cast their vote to uphold the status quo.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:14

marktheando: Nov 4, 2006

It would be in the general election, they would run a Tory candidate against him.

It�s also possible to remove the speaker with a vote in parliament, which they tried and failed to do a few years back. They definitely don�t have the numbers for that now though.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:15

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

I can't stop laughing at this loving Op-ed, it's hilarious on so many levels:

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:15

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

More and more I read the headline and just think "ok thanks mate"

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:17

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

triangular man posted:

Thanks for the responses so far, hope there's more! For some reason I'm finding the Speaker position one of the more interesting aspects to read about. This is probably helped by the current Speaker being so dramatic.

So let me see if I'm understanding right. Bercow is still an MP as well as the Speaker, so he still represents a constituency, and that's what some other MPs want to change in order to remove him as speaker? So if that's right, does that mean the speaker still votes on things as an MP? How would they try to unseat him as an MP? Is that a local election vote, part of the possible general election vote, or some internal party mechanism? Again, if it's an internal party thing, and he's technically not a Tory now as he is the Speaker, how does that work?

I was under the impression that the speaker is neutral in things like that? I mean, I kind of knew that if there's no majority on a thing they're voting for, the speaker can cast a deciding vote and that's by precedent usually a vote to keep the status quo on whatever the vote is about so there's more debate. So, the speaker won't vote to change anything because that wouldn't be neutral, right?

I think I might be getting muddled up here. Again, I am sure these are basics I have no understanding about so thanks for being nice!

The speaker only votes in case of a tie, and the convention is he votes for the continuation of debate unless it's a final reading of a bill, then he votes for the status quo.

And yeah, Bercow is a normal MP, for Buckingham. He was the Tory MP from 1997 until 2009 when the previous Speaker, Michael Martin, stepped down. So in 2010 & 2015 he ran as Speaker rather than as a Tory.

(And unrelated, but I've just discovered Robert Maxwell was MP for Buckingham in the '60s.)

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:18

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

triangular man posted:

Thanks for the responses so far, hope there's more! For some reason I'm finding the Speaker position one of the more interesting aspects to read about. This is probably helped by the current Speaker being so dramatic.

So let me see if I'm understanding right. Bercow is still an MP as well as the Speaker, so he still represents a constituency, and that's what some other MPs want to change in order to remove him as speaker? So if that's right, does that mean the speaker still votes on things as an MP? How would they try to unseat him as an MP? Is that a local election vote, part of the possible general election vote, or some internal party mechanism? Again, if it's an internal party thing, and he's technically not a Tory now as he is the Speaker, how does that work?

I was under the impression that the speaker is neutral in things like that? I mean, I kind of knew that if there's no majority on a thing they're voting for, the speaker can cast a deciding vote and that's by precedent usually a vote to keep the status quo on whatever the vote is about so there's more debate. So, the speaker won't vote to change anything because that wouldn't be neutral, right?

I think I might be getting muddled up here. Again, I am sure these are basics I have no understanding about so thanks for being nice!

He's an MP and was a Tory, but as speaker he is conventionally bound to act impartially, and may even technically sit as an independent. He doesn't usually cast a vote except to break a tie, and (iirc) in that instance he is bound by convention to vote for the status quo. The tories are currently suggesting they'll stand a full-fledged Tory member in Bercow's constituency at the next election, and if he's then unseated I think he can no longer serve as the speaker, so a new one will have to be selected. The tories can't do anything against the speaker through internal party mechanisms.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:18

The_Doctor: Mar 29, 2007; "The entire history of this incarnation is one of temporal orbits, retcons, paradoxes, parallel time lines, reiterations, and divergences. How anyone can make head or tail of all this chaos, I don't know."

Diet Crack posted:

I can't stop laughing at this loving Op-ed, it's hilarious on so many levels:

Ah, massive bigot and TERF Burchill.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:19

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

The_Doctor posted:

Ah, massive bigot and TERF Burchill.

Sounds about right, she looks like a miserable, dull piece of work - if pictures can paint a thousand words. The quip about enjoying fighting with her spouse says it all really. (20 years of marriage counselling, poor bastard.)

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:20

feedmegin: Jul 30, 2008

josh04 posted:

At the risk of looking seriously petty, negative zero is a float thing - signed integers simply go from -(2^x) to (2^x)-1

At the risk of looking even more petty, this is not true on eg a PDP-1 or the still extant UNIVAC 1100/Clearpath Dorado :science:

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:20

marktheando: Nov 4, 2006

Looking up Bercow facts just now I learned he is the first Jewish speaker, I had no idea.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:22

chestnut santabag: Jul 3, 2006

Rupert of Hentzau posted:

The Speaker is an MP who is elected to the position by other MPs. They immediately resign their existing party membership upon taking the post, and by convention none of the other parties stand candidates against them in general elections in order to preserve the neutrality of the position and to let the Speaker do their job of governing the house in a reasonably even-handed manner -- they can't do it properly if they're worrying that smacking down one party for constantly flouting procedure is going to result in their being out of a job come election time. Historically this has meant that the Speaker is Speaker until such time as they decide not to be and resign, at which point there is an election for a new Speaker.

Bercow as Speaker is a interesting, though; he was a Tory MP who started out on the right of the party, but his wife is a Labour member and appears to have had a moderating effect on his opinions over the years. He was elected Speaker as a sort of compromise candidate, since the other Tory candidates were frothing lunatics and Labour knew they didn't have the votes to put one of their own party in the chair, so they threw their weight behind Bercow as the lesser evil. The other part of this is that Bercow is an absolutely colossal narcissist -- even more so than your typical MP -- and loves putting on a performance for the cameras.

Put those two things together and you end up with an unexpectedly proactive Speaker who is willing to go out of his way to poo poo on the government whenever it gets out of line, even though it's a Tory government and he's an ex-Tory. Some of the things he's done have been without precedent, but hardly against the rules since the Speaker is the person who gets to decide what a lot of the rules are -- or at least how they are interpreted.

And now that the government is into full-on fascist mode and they're ignoring parliamentary conventions left right and centre, they've also figured that now is the time for a reckoning with Bercow. They can't make him give up the Speaker's chair and even if they win a majority in the next election he could still make life very difficult for them, so they're going to try to unseat him as an MP and install somebody who'll wave through all of their bullshit without a second thought.

I've been wondering, how do the constitencies that have been represented by a speaker feel about that representation? It seems like they get shafted a bit by not having an MP who can fully support them in parliament and also historically having less choice on who to vote for due to the convention of the major parties not fielding candidates there (that the tories are about to start ignoring).

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:23

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

marktheando posted:

Looking up Bercow facts just now I learned he is the first Jewish speaker, I had no idea.

Something something antisemitism

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:24

ThomasPaine: Feb 4, 2009; We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.

Gyro Zeppeli posted:

I live in Dumbarton and mutants sweeping down the high street would be, at worst, unnoticeable and, at best, an improvement.

Nice castle though I guess

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:24

chestnut santabag: Jul 3, 2006

Diet Crack posted:

Sounds about right, she looks like a miserable, dull piece of work - if pictures can paint a thousand words. The quip about enjoying fighting with her spouse says it all really. (20 years of marriage counselling, poor bastard.)

20 sessions, not years.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:24

Diet Crack: Jan 15, 2001

Ah, misread that bit. Point still stands.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:46

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Diet Crack posted:

I can't stop laughing at this loving Op-ed, it's hilarious on so many levels:

TERFS4Brexit, natural born Brityns.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:47

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Alright since you keep coming back I'm gonna bite: what's with your avatar and title? Are you a landlord?

Because I notice we keep politely helping you but if it turns out you're a landlord we might call for your beheading instead.

Yeah, I used to live in Virginia but we had to move back to where my wife is from to help out with her mother. The cost of living is so cheap where we moved that I kept the house in Virginia and rent it out as I didn�t need to sell it.

I actually used to have some red text from sassing Lowtax almost 20 years ago, but some brigadiers bought these avatars for anyone who posted in the now-defunct landlord thread. I haven�t changed it back yet.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:55

Rupert of Hentzau: Nov 23, 2005; Victim of gross furniture discourtesy.

chestnut santabag posted:

I've been wondering, how do the constitencies that have been represented by a speaker feel about that representation? It seems like they get shafted a bit by not having an MP who can fully support them in parliament and also historically having less choice on who to vote for due to the convention of the major parties not fielding candidates there (that the tories are about to start ignoring).

Not all that happy! I remember reading a few years back that there was a sizeable contingent of voters in Buckingham who were very annoyed that their votes effectively didn't count, and there have been an unusually high number of spoiled ballots in general elections there. However, UKIP and the Greens do still field candidates against Bercow and there's also always an independent candidate who tries their luck since the major parties won't, and they haven't managed to make a dent in his majority.

Whether this is because Bercow is genuinely popular there or simply because Buckingham is Tory Central is something that we're about to see tested.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:55

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

feedmegin posted:

At the risk of looking even more petty, this is not true on eg a PDP-1 or the still extant UNIVAC 1100/Clearpath Dorado

Curse you, ones' complement!

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:55

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Jealous Cow posted:

Yeah, I used to live in Virginia but we had to move back to where my wife is from to help out with her mother. The cost of living is so cheap where we moved that I kept the house in Virginia and rent it out as I didn�t need to sell it.

I actually used to have some red text from sassing Lowtax almost 20 years ago, but some brigadiers bought these avatars for anyone who posted in the now-defunct landlord thread. I haven�t changed it back yet.

You should stop being an rear end in a top hat and either sell it or charge your tenants way below market rates instead of being a parasite.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 13:58

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Hi welcome to the international posting brigade home base.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:01

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

Miftan posted:

You should stop being an rear end in a top hat and either sell it or charge your tenants way below market rates instead of being a parasite.

I have been seriously considering selling it. I�ve been getting unsolicited calls from investors wanting to buy it. But I don�t think that�s what you had in mind.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:04

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Jealous Cow posted:

I have been seriously considering selling it. I�ve been getting unsolicited calls from investors wanting to buy it. But I don�t think that�s what you had in mind.

It is not, dipshit.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:06

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

Miftan posted:

It is not, dipshit.

Oh I should mention it�s the only home I own. I�m a renter myself because it was convenient and works for us with our current situation. I�ll actually sell it when I need the down payment for whatever we buy next.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:08

Miftan: Mar 31, 2012; Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Jealous Cow posted:

Oh I should mention it�s the only home I own. I�m a renter myself because it was convenient and works for us with our current situation. I�ll actually sell it when I need the down payment for whatever we buy next.

Must be nice having someone else pay your rent for you. "Oh but I'm not like, millionaire rich! Just enough to exploit people poorer than me!"

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:09

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I'm not sure it's quite the same when you pay your rent by renting a house to someone else.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:11

Jealous Cow: Apr 4, 2002; by Fluffdaddy

I�m in my late 30s and I�ve been a renter most of my life since my early teens. Moved around the country every few years for different jobs. Lived in NYC for several years. None of that would be possible if I had no place to rent.

Am I just blind to some better option? Should I have been able to afford to buy and sell an apartment each time I moved? When work sent me to Australia for 6 months should I have stayed in a hotel? Should they have bought a place for me to stay? Or was the furnished rental I stayed in the right option given the circumstances?

I get that in some possession-less utopia all housing needs are exactly met with no burden on the individual. We don�t live in that world. I don�t know what I would have done without easy to find, easy to leave rentals.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:17

stev: Jan 22, 2013; Please be excited.

Jealous Cow posted:

I’m in my late 30s and I’ve been a renter most of my life since my early teens. Moved around the country every few years for different jobs. Lived in NYC for several years. None of that would be possible if I had no place to rent.

Am I just blind to some better option? Should I have been able to afford to buy and sell an apartment each time I moved? When work sent me to Australia for 6 months should I have stayed in a hotel? Should they have bought a place for me to stay? Or was the furnished rental I stayed in the right option given the circumstances?

I get that in some possession-less utopia all housing needs are exactly met with no burden on the individual. We don’t live in that world. I don’t know what I would have done without easy to find, easy to leave rentals.

I don't think anyone wants the concept of short term or rental accommodation to go away. But it should be the exception, and there for people who move around or can't practically commit to a place. And there should be actual measures in place to make sure renters aren't exploited.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:21

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

If renting without owning is so good then presumably you're very keen to sell the house and go back to it.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:27

elbkaida: Jan 13, 2008; Look!

Steve2911 posted:

I don't think anyone wants the concept of short term or rental accommodation to go away. But it should be the exception, and there for people who move around or can't practically commit to a place. And there should be actual measures in place to make sure renters aren't exploited.

Why should renting be the exception? The council should own and rent out flats. Much easier to maintain stuff to a good standard if you have only one owner for the whole building or estate.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:27

Gonzo McFee: Jun 19, 2010

Didn't Julie Burchill apply for citizenship of Israel, get knocked back and she still wrote an article saying she understands and she'll try to do better?

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:29

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

kecske posted:

When shall we three meet again
in thunder, lightning, or in rain?

The only coven where all three are "...the other one".

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:31

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

The problem with renting out somewhere you own even when renting elsewhere is really about capital accumulation - If you've bought a house and then rented out to pay another landlords, then day to day it's like both houses are owned by the second landlord - that's not the unjust bit. The unjust bit is if that property you have bought has increased in value over that time, so when you sell it in the future you make a profit from being rich enough to buy it in the first place, and the poor sap who actually lives there see's none of it. It's taking from the poor renter to give to the richer owner, a unfair and unequal distribution of wealth.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 20:47

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

Yeah, it's not as simple as 'I rent to someone else so I can pay rent myself due to my itinerant lifestyle' because a: presumably that job pays you enough money that you can afford to pay rent ANYWAY, so, why are you sponging off your tenants? And b: your tenants are funding your property's price increases so you don't have to.

You're not going to find much sympathy for landlords ITT.

# ? Sep 8, 2019 14:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September 2019 - A Fish-Abandoning Government

«‹›420 »