|
It was an anarchist hedgehog- it lived in a mutually supportive hedgehog collective and then ended up in a socialist hedgehog hospital.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
I was reading through some stuff from Yes Minister creators, and their views on government pretty fit in pretty neatly with what I think about PMQs, that its all nakedly theatre, and anyone actually expecting the government to be held to account in there misunderstands the point of it. Q 4 - Given that the series revolves around the workings of government, though mainly in Cabinet, why was there never a single scene in either series set in the House of Commons? A 4 - The answer is in the question. There was not a single scene set in the House of Commons because the series is about the government. Government does not take place in the House of Commons; some politics takes place there, and much theatre takes place there. Government happens in private. As in all public performances, the real work is done in rehearsal, behind closed doors. Then the public, and the House, are shown what the government wishes them to see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
General China posted:It was an anarchist hedgehog- it lived in a mutually supportive hedgehog collective and then ended up in a socialist hedgehog hospital. Should say all that is needed on the topic of socialist health care, tbh
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Should say all that is needed on the topic of socialist health care, tbh TBH, I think you need to expand on your opinion more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
General China posted:It was an anarchist hedgehog- it lived in a mutually supportive hedgehog collective and then ended up in a socialist hedgehog hospital. Mutually supportive hedgehog collective, built on the blood of earthworms and slugs! Not so much a mutually supportive collective, but a barbarous apartheid elite oppressing the innocent inhabitants of the fields and gardens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
General China posted:TBH, I think you need to expand on your opinion more. Sonic there went to a commie hospital and soon ripped. The free market would have saved him. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:I was reading through some stuff from Yes Minister creators, and their views on government pretty fit in pretty neatly with what I think about PMQs, that its all nakedly theatre, and anyone actually expecting the government to be held to account in there misunderstands the point of it. It's both amazing, and depressing, how pertinent Yes Minister still is to the workings of politics. That, and The Thick of It. Though that's more depressing considering no matter what absurd, or patronising situation or policy the writers can come up with, real politics will always be more absurd or patronising. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Sonic there went to a commie hospital and soon ripped. The free market would have saved him. Free market healthcare 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Oh good Caroline Lucas on QT saying that renewables have been more reliable than the UKs nuclear industry lately. Maybe this has something to do with us not building any new nuclear plants since 1995 and having ones just about running that we finished in the 70s. This is why I won't ever vote green.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
General China posted:I vote for a lancashire thread. Lets get devolution going. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Oh good Caroline Lucas on QT saying that renewables have been more reliable than the UKs nuclear industry lately. Maybe this has something to do with us not building any new nuclear plants since 1995 and having ones just about running that we finished in the 70s.  "NO NUKLEAR/WHORES DESERVE WHAT THEY GET" isn't going to help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Surely anybody posting in the thread is a scottish poster? Only if they identify as Scottish (by voting Yes). If you want to know the future of a ScotPol thread, imagine a jock boot stamping on a human face forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
We don't call them Scottish posters, we prefer the more inclusive term of posters in the Scottish thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Men Who Post With Men About Scotland
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Given that you're posh now, maybe you could take over the Duchy Palatinate from the Queen and rule Lancashire as an independent political entity? I mean, you have the castle now and all, and you can discuss pheasant shooting with your new peers! In fairness, "whores deserve what they get" is only the personal policy of Caroline Lucas. Private Eye posted:I was reading through some stuff from Yes Minister creators, and their views on government pretty fit in pretty neatly with what I think about PMQs, that its all nakedly theatre, and anyone actually expecting the government to be held to account in there misunderstands the point of it. It's the same with the idea of parliamentary sovereignty; it's more accurate to say that the overriding principle in British politics is actually the supremacy of the Cabinet. If Parliament was truly sovereign, Phillip Hammond would be meeting with Mahmoud Abbas about Palestine and Theresa May would be preparing for a royal commission on drug use. Parliamentary sovereignty is just a fig leaf for a lazy government to not do the right thing – especially when Cameron starts spouting nonsense at PMQs about how he wants a referendum to confirm parliamentary sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
parliamentary supremacy has never meant that parliament handles day-to-day activities, any more than the supremacy of a Supreme Court means that it handles traffic tickets in fact the cabinet isn't supposed to handle day-to-day activities either, that's the job of the permanent secretaries, who therefore wield substantial power, as Tony Benn discovered and Yes Minister popularized. Elite civil servant decisions about what constitute practical ways to accomplish political goals selected by democratic mandate is a key part of actually-existing policy formation that itself reflects that the policymaking intelligentsia in Britain has always had a relatively coherent sense of the possible in politics, even during the rise and fall of the Liberals, rise and fall of old Labour, Thatcher, etc. Shifting the role of government involves more delegation and creation/destruction of agencies/quangos, rather than redirecting an existing civil service body, which prefers to sway with an administrative consensus instead
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
TinTower posted:In fairness, "whores deserve what they get" is only the personal policy of Caroline Lucas. Is this about the Nordic model thing? Can you link to something explaining more about this? I know literally nothing about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Parliamentary sovereignty is just a fig leaf for a lazy government to not do the right thing – especially when Cameron starts spouting nonsense at PMQs about how he wants a referendum to confirm parliamentary sovereignty. Is that you, Jack of Kent?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
I want a thread where only Pissflaps and Coolhoolin can post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
If we can make a scotpol thread that doesn't involve the same few jokes implying that all supporters of scottish independence are crazy racists being posted every couple of pages by the same posters then I might almost be in favour of it A similar moratorium on whatever hilarious satirical barbs its opponents are tired of hearing might also be agreed I guess, it's only fair
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
I think it would be a good thing if, before posting links to external resources, the person doing the posting actually read the resource, made sure they understood it, and checked it had even a slight relevance to the point they're trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I'm happy with a Scotpol thread as long as Pissflaps and Regarde Aduck aren't allowed to post. Why shouldn't they post in the Scotpol thread? I trust it isn't simply because they disagree with you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
Hey at least we're having the authentic experience right here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
I'm starting to wish Scotland had hosed off and taken all this discussion with it
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I'm starting to wish Scotland had hosed off and taken all this discussion with it Yeah, the last few months and threads have turned me into a pretty ardent Scottish nationalist for exactly that reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
How would a Yes victory have been better? Splitting up a country is a tremendously contentious issue and the damage to the economy and society it would've done would've lead to huge arguments. The push for independence was going to cause ongoing ructions regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:How would a Yes victory have been better? Splitting up a country is a tremendously contentious issue and the damage to the economy and society it would've done would've lead to huge arguments. The push for independence was going to cause ongoing ructions regardless of the outcome of the referendum. I think the implication is because the arguments wouldn't be in UKMT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I'm starting to wish Scotland had hosed off and taken all this discussion with it Tough, we are Better Together(tm). The full tables from the Ipsos-MORI poll in Scotland have been released. There's some interesting results in how support breaks down by social classes, particularly for the Greens (charts taken from here)     
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
I always imagined that Green voters tended to be better off. Poverty breeds pragmatism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I always thought there would be a difference and skew that way in particular, but I didn't expect it to be such a large one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
The South Yorkshire PCC results are trickling in. Labour have won Doncaster with 45% to UKIP's 33% and seem to be winning Sheffield comfortably. Problem is, turnout is way up in Rotherham. UKIP may win on the second round depending on Tory and English Democrat second preferences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
What capabilities would a PCC have in bolstering and increasing police racism should UKIP win?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:What capabilities would a PCC have in bolstering and increasing police racism should UKIP win? Isn't the UKIP candidate an ex-police officer that was physically present and a senior officer for all the really bad poo poo that that particular constabulary was involved in, including Hillsborough? And didn't the UKIP campaign essentially boil down to "Muslims rape ARE white girls"? So his mere presence would probably raise police racism by orders of magnitude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Most likely but I'm curious if the PCC will have the power to pursue the standard racist tactic of abusing the minority population unroll they riot allowing the racists in suits to call for harsher policing against that minority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Isn't the UKIP candidate an ex-police officer that was physically present and a senior officer for all the really bad poo poo that that particular constabulary was involved in, including Hillsborough? And didn't the UKIP campaign essentially boil down to "Muslims rape ARE white girls"? So his mere presence would probably raise police racism by orders of magnitude. I always think South Yorkshire Police must be pretty much the worst force after the Met, they always seem to be involved in something lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Kind of thought Labour would take a kicking. Anecdotally a lot of the people who voted No did so not out of a love of the Union but out of a fear of what might come after the split. With the three main parties all being perceived as backing down from their promises of new powers to Scotland as well as feelings of resentment towards Westminster increasing in general, especially with the whole "Ed Miliband didn't let me say anything about the bedroom tax because he wanted to see if it was popular or not first" thing happening in the same week as this poll I'd say the backlash was inevitable. Labour also had to walk the dangerously thin line of trying to sound positive about Scotland while also talking about how it couldn't stand up on it's own, and a lot of people take that personally. Labour will spring back with memories like that fading into the background and depending on who they elect as Scottish Labour leader (Jim Murphy is not the man to do that, he's seen as a stooge and if Labour actually wants him to become the Scottish Labour Leader they should stop saying they want him in charge) but huge losses to the SNP are inevitable. The Tories and Lib Dems would also be in huge trouble if they weren't already utterly hosed in Scotland. A Coalition between the Scottish Greens and the SNP might be a thing down the line as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Yeah, he was around for Hillsborough and the miner's strike, and a significant proportion of the abuse in Rotherham. Surrey Police have been involved in some dodgy stuff too, a lot came out in the phone hacking and bribery inquiries. It's the same across the UK but some forces do have some good initiatives and do some good work alongside all the terrible stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
twoot posted:On an amusing level he is the embodiment of modern politics. He stayed an undergraduate at Strathclyde Uni for 9 years until he used his position as NUS president to barge through a bunch of New Labour policies, and then left without graduating to be rewarded with the seat he has held since 1997. I went to Strathclyde a little later, with someone who did something similar (9 years as an undergrad, kept on changing his degree though) and the issue would have been that 9 years is the cut-off where your local authority stops subsidising your education, and you then have to pay the overseas student price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
The landlord charm offensive continues: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/31/millionaire-landlords-fergus-judith-wilson-evicting-families Zero hours contract? No house for you! More than two children? No house for you! Granny coming to stay? No house for you! Got a problem? Shut it, there are plenty of other losers, bums, and ambulatory cashpoints just waiting to take your place. Rachman come back, all is forgiven. quote:Britain’s most controversial landlords, Fergus and Judith Wilson, whose property empire extends to nearly 1,000 homes in Kent, have begun evicting families with more than two children, banned tenants on zero-hours contracts and thrown out extended families where the grandmother comes to stay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Labour need to figure out what it is they stand for. Nobody seems clear on that, and "we're not the Tories" isn't enough. There are people who would have been babies when Blair got into power voting in the next general election, they can't just rely on people's memories of Labour as the party of the working classes any more.Pissflaps posted:Men Who Post With Men About Scotland Less of the sexism thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:52 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The landlord charm offensive continues: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/oct/31/millionaire-landlords-fergus-judith-wilson-evicting-families Your selective quoting does exclude the rationale, albeit one that the article halfheartedly challenges: quote:Wilson claims that he has no choice but to evict multiple-occupancy tenants and large families because otherwise he would be in breach of council overcrowding rules. “Contrary to what may be depicted by the leftwing media, I do not eat little babies alive … I do not make the rules, but I do play by them … welcome to ethnic engineering at the coal face.” Reading the related article, it's quite a feat though. To start with an initial investment to buy a £98k house and turn it into a property portfolio worth £100m over the course of 10 years is quite an accomplishment. I know everyone here will just say "it's just luck" - but every homeowner experienced the same luck over the period, but didn't have the foresight/necessary balls to get rich doing it. Just a shame they appear to be such shits about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:18
|
|
