UK Political Cartoons Mega Thread Part 3 (Australian Cartoons Now Welcome)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UK Political Cartoons Mega Thread Part 3 (Australian Cartoons Now Welcome)

«‹›2 »

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Irony Be My Shield posted:

Slightly odd considering the Queen isn't allowed to/ traditionally does not vote.

Just doesn't AFAIK. Anyway, "Cities of London and Westminster" is a pretty safe Tory seat so I doubt the Queen's protest vote for the Pirate Party made much difference in the last election.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2012 03:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:27

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Betjeman posted:

I think that's supposed to be the Lib Dem's dove emblem. Is he suggesting Charles is a Lib Dem supporter?

Well he is a blithering idiot...

# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 14:14

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Would it somehow be more acceptable if the family were split into two three bedroom houses? I doubt it'd be grabbing headlines if that were the case...

# ¿ Feb 21, 2013 16:55

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Zephro posted:

The Mac one today seems to be totally free of dodgy ethnic stereotypes and is even a passable joke.

He sure knows his audience, though. Every domestic scene features the smug, wealthy and old and looks like time completely stopped in about 1980*.

*That style of mantlepiece clock, the fact that there are letters everywhere but no computer, the phone isn't cordless, the fire burns coal instead of gas/being a wood-burner...

Looks like a non-widescreen CRT TV in the bottom right too. Not like those benefits scroungers with their FLATSCREENS!

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 16:21

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Fluo posted:

Guardian:

Martin Rowson on social class and media coverage of the Philpott verdict.

You can see the pure hate and bile Rowson has for that front page of the Daily Mail.

The front page by the way Rowson is parodying is this piece of Daily Heil poo poo;
...

Martin Rowson for loving Prime Minister. :britain:

# ¿ Apr 4, 2013 17:41

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

GuestBob posted:

Does anyone actually like Michael Gove? I am pretty sure it's just David Cameron and Gove's mother at this point.

It must be really crap to be education secretary if you can't actually enter a place of education without being in fear of someone throwing something at you or punching you. I mean, could you imagine Gove walking across a university campus anywhere in Britain? He would end up in a blopdy heap with a birkenstock poking out of his arse.

Isn't Gove considered to be some kind of perfect proto-Tory regularly touted as the next leader of the party? Makes sense because he is horrific in every respect that we expect a Tory to be like.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2013 18:42

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

ookiimarukochan posted:

Also 2 birds - did he get so excited he forgot he added one and then added another?

One is a UAV, obviously.

# ¿ May 1, 2013 22:55

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Same two birds in that new cartoon :tinfoil:

# ¿ May 2, 2013 02:57

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

He should've written it Nigelet since Nigel is pronounced /ˈnaɪdʒəl/ and the joke is easier to get if you're trying to write /ˈnaɪdʒlɛt/ rather than /'nɪglɛt/ which is close enough to the N word that people wonder if it's a slur (and therefore distract them from the cartoon) if they're not sure.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 13:42

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Kegluneq posted:

'Nigelet' doesn't really read or scan nearly as well for 'Piglet' though, which would be the source of the pun.

Nigel-let is to Pig-let as Nigel is to Pig?

No one would call a bloke called Nigel "Nig" (as in rhymes with pig) as a nickname so I don't see how you can conclude Niglet makes more sense as a pun.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 13:48

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Kegluneq posted:

Agreed in principle, but "Niglet" is more clearly derivative of Piglet than 'Nigelet" is.

At the expense that it's less clearly a derivative of Nigel, and idiots like us with nothing better to do are arguing about it on the internet. If he had written Nigelet I doubt this would've gone past "yeah we can see why he didn't write Niglet".

# ¿ May 8, 2013 15:27

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Can anyone actually explain why do we have different electric/gas tariffs at all? It's all coming out the same plug/pipe and why would anyone ever want to overpay? I know Cameron recently spouted off about making a law insisting people are on the lowest tariff but I cannot fathom why they exist except as a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers. And given how much money must be wasted on sales call centres and adverts and the duplication of administrative capabilities I also can't understand how it makes any sense whatsoever to have a privatised energy sector.

Edit: Sorry forgot this was the cartoon thread. The mention of energy companies just reminded me how bizarre the whole system seems to me that's all.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 17:30 on May 15, 2013

# ¿ May 15, 2013 17:27

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Jedit posted:

Because depending how and when you use electricity, you can save money. If you work from home, it may be better to pay a flat rate round the clock. If you're out all day, you would want a tariff that gives you cheaper electricity at night in return for paying more for electricity used during the day. And so on and so forth.

That doesn't explain why they exist in the first place.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 20:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

baka kaba posted:

Differentiation in a market

Demand does influence costs of supplying fuel and energy at various times, so different tariffs are a way of encouraging people to use energy at certain times and smooth things out, and to make it more expensive to step outside of that and use energy less predictably. But this is also a basic necessary resource that has been sold off to private companies who are out to extract rent from it, so any reason to confuse people and act like they're providing some kind of intelligent service around their provision. The private sector is more dynamic and efficient, look at our range of products

I can understand having different rates in peak and off-peak times, but you don't need different tariffs for that.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 21:48

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

baka kaba posted:

You can have tariffs that match a certain expected demand - if a certain percentage of people have chosen a given tariff as the best one, that implies a certain use pattern and lets you understand how they intend to use energy, and what the demands will be in each region. It helps incentivise use at certain times by giving people a deal where they get cheap energy at one time, with very expensive energy at other times. Energy production likes demand to be stable and predictable, so the amount of energy being put into the grid needs as little adjustment as necessary, it's not as simple as 'on peak/off peak'

But that's a separate question from 'why do the energy companies have so many tariffs', which is because they're out to make consumer decisions as difficult and opaque as possible, and make it less obvious how much they're jacking up their prices and doing nothing socially useful

1) Is energy usage really so unpredictable (especially in-home usage) they need consumers to choose tariffs in advance as an indication? Somehow that seems very weird to me.

2) So many people just don't bother to figure out what tariff they "should" be on and many others pick the wrong one, so even if (1) holds then I don't see that it is actually that useful to the company.

I'm sure the years of data these companies have on usage would be a far more effective predictor than what tariffs people are choosing. I'd be very surprised to learn if electricity usage was very elastic at all; and the weather is going to be the dominant factor in future gas usage, not tariffs. Your reasoning has a vague lol markets sort of logic to it, but it just smells like a steaming pile of horseshit to me. In your second paragraph you agree they make it "difficult and opaque" for consumers and so that completely contradicts your justification in the first.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 22:57

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

goatface posted:

Energy usage is quirky as gently caress. Kettle time is probably the classic example, when hundreds of thousands of kettles get turned on at half time in a cup final and the grid suddenly needs to produce a few gigawatts more power.

edit - The companies are class A rip-off merchants though, no question. They know that most people won't be able to calculate which of the tariffs is cheapest for them, but they also can argue they have to provide them because they are cheaper for some people to use.

With smart metering you could apply tariffs after the fact, but

Err how is that quirky? It's all entirely predictable from the TV schedules...

Edit: I've yet to be convinced this energy usage prediction problem is anything an undergraduate CS/AI student couldn't solve. Anyway this is a pretty pointless derail.

Lord of the Llamas fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 15, 2013

# ¿ May 15, 2013 23:09

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

baka kaba posted:

It's complicated because of the interaction between the generation side (which has to put the required amount of energy into the grid, too much or too little Is A Bad Thing) and the transmission and wholesale, and honestly people in the power generation thread could give you a much more satisfactory answer.

The point is that tariffs are contracts, they signal how much energy customers will demand and when, and when people use energy outside of their normal hours (when it's expensive on their tariff) the increased price covers the additional demand that the wholesaler has to buy more electricity for. It can work as a hedge too, if there's a surge in demand at a particular time, if you have enough people on a mix of tariffs you won't suddenly get a ton of people using electricity and paying a low price, it should balance out with people paying a higher price too.

I think they're already probably pretty good at modelling demand and price fluctuations, since a) we have pretty drat stable power generation without excess demand causing brownouts, and b) the energy companies are consistently hugely profitable, so they're not paying out of the nose for emergency energy supply. So obviously the system is pretty well balanced, allowing the power companies to get skimming off the sweet sweet rentier profits

So basically it's a mechanism to protect our glorious private energy companies from losing their precious profits and provides no real benefit to the consumer at all. Pretty much what I assumed.

# ¿ May 15, 2013 23:36

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Fluo posted:

Express:

Clegg wears rosettes to work (because he won't be winning another election ha ha?) and I swear it looks like "Cameron" is reaching for his arse...

# ¿ May 23, 2013 04:09

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cloud Potato posted:

...

Express:

...Vixen outshines old bird???

Her right arm is some kind of terminator style screw weapon? Also only four fingers on the left hand...?

Although I love the look on Charles' face: "I never upstaged anyone :smith:

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 02:50

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

ClownSyndrome posted:

Ok, there's the fox, the bird...but I can't find any members of the royal family

Small man in the background is Charles being excluded because serious politicians have no desire to hear any of his opinions.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 12:58

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Osborne wants to cut public services like a donner kebab? I don't really get the "posh burger" reference?

Everything is better with garlic sauce I suppose though...

Edit: Nice fox tattoo, but a missed foxtail gag with the kebab meat imo

# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 03:35

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

goatface posted:

The NHS 111 number is being run on massively outdated computer technology by people with no fashion sense, while urban wildlife runs rampant through their call centres.

A... cartoon?

To be fair he has to draw computers in such a way that his target demographic will recognise them as such...

# ¿ Jul 30, 2013 01:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Paul Thomas gets paid for this poo poo??!

# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 01:01

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Fluo posted:

I like todays Independent cartoon, also on a side note: the 30 year secret rule is changed to 20. But can't release all 10 years in one time as it takes forever so every year untill its down to 20 they will be releasing 2 years of secrets instead of 1.

And by secrets we mean awful poo poo even the selfish fuckheads in charge are embarrassed by. As if the 80s didn't seem bad enough by what we already have in the public record :smithicide:

God I can't even begin to imagine how awful the 2020s is going to feel once we all learn what Blair was really saying behind closed doors...

# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 01:36

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Charities just as poo poo as the rest of the private sector? Colour me shocked :O

# ¿ Aug 7, 2013 03:02

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

McDowell posted:

The cartoonist is in the forums But who?

Hi Paul. I claim my five pounds.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2013 03:32

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Yeah HIGNFY hardly qualifies as "bloke blast" so it's probably aimed at Mock the Week. HIGNFY is far too unashamedly wishy washy liberal only going so far as to allow Ian Hislop to sort of maybe insinuate about the massive corruptions that take place in our country. Not that Hislop would be anywhere close to being a true comrade even completely uncensored. :ussr:

Mock the Week however, just tells jokes. You know, like on Top Gear.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2013 02:48

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

FLATSCREEN TV :siren:

# ¿ Oct 1, 2013 00:51

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Wow what a loving disgrace. Why am I surprised though?

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 12:19

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cloud Potato posted:

...

Express:

Paul Thomas is on acid right?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2013 04:33

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cloud Potato posted:

Mail:
"It will soon be illegal to smoke in cars when children are present."

What is this cartoon even trying to say? "Not his day is it?" ??

# ¿ Jan 31, 2014 01:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Kegluneq posted:

Confirmed sexhaver and master criminal? Labour have been trying for years to make him look this cool!

Who steals diamonds from the rich to fund public services?! :c00lbert:

# ¿ Apr 10, 2015 12:15

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Zephro posted:

I don't quite get why he has Sturgeon on a leash. If the SNP can influence the Tories (hint: they can't) then that's good for the SNP since it proves they can get concessions for Scotland as promised. If the SNP can't influence the Tories (which will actually happen) then that's good for the SNP since it supports their narrative that the Tories are shits and Westminster doesn't care about Scotland. Either way the SNP wins.

All Cameron can really do is call their bluff by offering full fiscal autonomy straight away but that's not really the same as being their puppetmaster, it's a high-risk strategy that might work or might fail massively.

I think it's meant more in the sense being constrained by than literally "on a leash like a pet". That a Conservative majority both constrains him by having to appease all the Tory promises on cuts and the EU referendum and constrains the SNP because they can't use their large contingent of MPs to stop him passing legislation. It's not a win-win for the SNP because they have literally won about as much as is every possible to and so now there's the risk that all people will see is that despite their bluster the SNP can't just wave a magic wand to get things done. We've reached peak SNP popularity so the game is about keeping their voters happy so things don't end up swinging back to Labour.

# ¿ May 10, 2015 18:49

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Zephro posted:

Hm. I dunno if I agree with your analysis of the SNP - we've definitely reached peak popularity, but if they send a bunch of Westminster MPs to London and nothing changes then they can spin that as "look, we tried working within the system and it didn't work, all we can do now is change the system (ie vote to leave)." If the Tories really let the right-wing agenda rip then I can see that working. Especially since the SNP have been running Scotland for years, so they can say "look, we are a credible party of government, we just can't work within this system because the electoral arithmetic means Scotland will always be ignored".

If Cameron is smart, and can persuade his party (the latter being harder than the former) then they'll drip-feed concessions throughout the Parliament in an attempt to blunt the SNP attack and then see how things look after the next election. But I dunno. Not many things ever feel inevitable in politics but independence really feels like a Thing That Could Happen in the next decade or two at this point.

This assumes that the softer part of the SNP vote can emotionally detach themselves from the union completely and won't care about Tory governments in RUK if Scotland gets FFA or independence or whatever. I can see the SNP being permanently entrenched in Holyrood for the foreseeable future but I think a lot of voters are going to be more pragmatic in the Westminster 2020 election in terms of returning more Labour MPs. That being said I don't think it's going to return to the previous status quo of 40+ Labour MPs at all. It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens in the former Lib Dem constituencies both north and south of the border. With no more incumbents and battered local parties they're really going to struggle.

# ¿ May 12, 2015 13:33

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cloud Potato posted:

Telegraph:

Tories go to war with the BBC (Ed Miliband hits Ibiza after standing down as Labour Party leader)

Seriously the Telegraph can gently caress off.

# ¿ May 13, 2015 12:47

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

They've clearly never been anywhere near a football stadium. As far as I can see this is where 95% of street police appear to spend their time. Perhaps if we ban football we can free up untold hours of police time?

# ¿ Aug 15, 2015 22:54

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Cloud Potato posted:

Times:

Pretty sure this should have Brown missing Corbyn. He said nothing new and won't change anyone's mind.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2015 14:43

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

I don't think it's Prescott sicne he rebuked Blair. Blunkett??

# ¿ Aug 18, 2015 10:05

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Geokinesis posted:

But....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/16/gordon-brown-warning-against-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership

???

# ¿ Aug 18, 2015 12:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:27

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Rigged Death Trap posted:

Return of Charles of Arabia.

Sheikh of Wales mate.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2015 22:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UK Political Cartoons Mega Thread Part 3 (Australian Cartoons Now Welcome)

«‹›2 »