UKMT September 2019 - A Fish-Abandoning Government

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

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

It's more just astonishment at modern capitalism that we can somehow lose all our industry and still somehow be a rich country? That we still get all these imports of the same goods made overseas somehow and send back... nothing? in return. Balance of payments has been negative for ages and by some magic the city of london makes countries still send things here?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2019 12:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 18:39

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Borrovan posted:

We send our capital, benevolently creating forced labour opportunities for disadvantaged people overseas whilst giving the British worker more time to spend on his hobbies, like applying for welfare benefits and stealing food from bins

But... what is capital, really? it's not precisely money - it's the things money can buy, tools and materials and all that. And we don't make those anymore, at least in any number. So we send our capital to china so china can buy the things china produces and in return china sends things to the UK?

# ¿ Sep 1, 2019 12:17

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

I don't get the point of proroguing parliament then? Otherwise Boris could just wait for anti no deal legislation, then demand an election via FTPA to "defend brexit". Proroguing parliament really pisses off his opponents after that, which you'd think would be worse for turnout in an election than the alternative.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2019 02:24

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Junior G-man posted:

It's bizarre. Even the comments section of the FT seems to be going, 26bn a year? That's fine.

There's a little bit of Venezuela rage foaming, but FT comments are actually not bad?

Paying for FT accounts for your bots is expensive.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2019 13:49

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Besides, the money in government comes from the power it provides, and someone will always hold that power - just the best method to decide who it so far is elected representatives. Power corrupts, or at least attracts the corrupt - same difference.

# ¿ Sep 3, 2019 08:40

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Junior G-man posted:

Given that there's no formal constitution and apparently you can ask Her Maj to make Parliament piss off for a few weeks for *reasons*, why not?

Parliamentary sovereignty works here - If parliament passed a bill stripping that power it would be gone by the end of the week, and no reason they can't?

# ¿ Sep 3, 2019 09:56

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Midnight- posted:

Don't amendments have to be specifically related to the bill they're amending though?

Bercow is the one deciding what's allowed and what's not, sooooo...

# ¿ Sep 3, 2019 12:07

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

help me I'm a centrist Marxist

# ¿ Sep 3, 2019 12:25

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Comrade Fakename posted:

If this election goes ahead and the Tories lose, will tomorrow�s PMQs be Johnson�s only one?

Probably, actually. If parliament breaks up before next Wednesday due to prorogation or VONC, then it will be unless him somone manages to prorogue and then win a queens speech in a month.

EDIT: no night shifts for me, just living halfway around the world now so didn't get to watch BoJo's humiliation.

Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Sep 4, 2019

# ¿ Sep 4, 2019 03:22

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

ronya posted:

Juan Linz made the influential argument in 1985 that most presidential systems have been more unstable than parliamentary ones, centrally due to competing legitimacies of the presidency and legislature

Neat article on this topic showing that the economy does better in parliamentary systems, on average.

# ¿ Sep 4, 2019 05:18

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

What's more meant in the British conception of political capital is Legislative time and effort. If you're writing bills to abolish the lords and presenting them to the media, defending them, editing bills etc.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2019 04:30

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

There's a reason that the lords only has amending powers

I've thought that having Lords duty as a thing you apply for, but picking from applications is random gets the benefits of Jury duty without forcing someone to do the job of a lord for 3 years or whatever the length.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2019 08:42

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

On election timing - I'm just going to quote Steven Bush on this.

Steven Bush posted:

Good morning. After ten hours and sixteen votes, an agreement has been reached between supporters and opponents of House of Lords to pass Hilary Benn's bill to seek an extension to the Article 50 by 5pm on Friday, which means that it is certain to become a law and an election in on the way.

But when? The various opponents of a no deal Brexit agree on the answer - as soon as their move to seek an extension has been legally confirmed. But they disagree about what that means: does it mean after the bill has become a law? That's the opinion of the leaders of both the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders - at least, that's what they both argued in the House.

The reason why passing the bill into law is important is that it guarantees that if the next parliament is hung, Boris Johnson cannot simply let the United Kingdom tumble out of the European Union before the new parliament meets. That, at least, is clear.

But some within their parties think that it means waiting until after Johnson has triggered the Article 50 extension, the better to humiliate him and deepen his problem with the Brexit party.

In practice, the debate is one over electoral strategy: what maximises the chances of producing a parliament that can prevent a no deal Brexit again? I think both sides are at risk of being too clever by half.

The Conservative line that Jeremy Corbyn is scared of an election gives Johnson something to talk about other than his flawless record of four defeats in four in the House of Commons and seventeen defeats in seventeen in the House of Lords. The problem is that attacking someone for being too chicken to hold an election ceases to be a viable attack line once the election is underway. There's the risk, too, that the time simply gives Johnson longer to disintegrate on the campaign trail.

But the 'let Johnson stew in his own juices' crowd are at risk of being too clever for their own good too. Holding off the start of the formal election campaign until after the extension has been triggered means effectively, a two month election campaign on top of the 25 working day statutory campaign - but crucially, a two month campaign in which the tighter broadcast rules around elections do not apply and there are no restrictions on what political parties and outside groups can spend.

That does mean that various pro-Remain and anti no-deal groups can organise and campaign to the heart's content: but more importantly it means that the full might of the government's advertising budget can also be deployed, while the government will continue to enjoy a disproportionate level of coverage for its announcements up until the contest proper starts. It also means two months of prominent headlines about Labour MPs and their trigger ballots.

Delaying also facilitates Nicola Sturgeon's attack line against Scottish Labour, that they are weak and indecisive and only a vote for her party is guaranteed to produce a Scottish parliamentary contingent capable of standing up to the Conservative government. (Though Labour may reason that they are going to get shellacked in Scotland come what may.)

Of course, an election runs the risk of a Johnson majority - but that's the risk of any election at any time. Neither big party looks certain to do best with an imminent election or by pushing it out to November: but to my eyes the risk of waiting is heavier for Labour.

I think I agree, but it's certainly up for debate - I'd say strike while the Iron is hot but don't know how prepared Labour is at the moment.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2019 12:23

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Chinese Gordon posted:

Yes, they have obviously done the right thing here, eventually. But the fact that it basically took the entire frontbench to make the point against the instincts of the leadership is pretty concerning IMO.

I don't think it's so clear cut on whether to push for an election on Monday or not. I posted an article by Steven Bush earlier on this, but more time can give Johnson space to recover as it can for him to collapse, and more time for them to come up with policies and campaign outside of election rules. Still, it's not the end of the world, and if johnson resigns as PM rather than extend article 50 that's still pretty good since that looks betting going into an election, which Ideally we'd hold early november.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 09:27

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Barry Foster posted:

It's cathartic - it's actually good for the reasons you and bman don't like it, it shows you the absolute worst, most awkward people, and you get to laugh about how you're (hopefully) not like that.

Also mix in the sheer schadenfreude of watching terrible people have a terrible time. We all enjoy watching Johnson humiliate himself, so why not Alan Partridge or David Brent?

I just get annoyed/angry at cringe comedy most of the time, mostly because I'm thinking "no one would do that/be that stupid, they should do X..." most the time when watching it. I suppose they are getting a reaction from me, just not the one they want. Still, stay on the right shade of believable and it can be good (The inbetweeners)

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 09:46

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1169899236772601856?s=20

Can't actually read the article but students would defo be more active and involved for a Nov election - given the term doesn't start till late Sept/early Oct getting students to register in time and orgnized for canvassing would but an utter nightmare for a Oct election - it was hard enough back last June when it was during exam season, very start of term would be worse. That extra month would be pretty massive for student organization and votes.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 10:09

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Having those experiences to relate to on the show is vital too - It's why I bounced off Peep Show, not being a working adult yet means it just didn't land with me as it's more unfamiliar.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 10:17

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

namesake posted:

Problem is where do they live and with the very young where will they be living during November? Like the issue with Labour going hard remain to get more Remainers, it doesn't matter if all these new voters are in safe seats and doesn't really matter if they're in places where Labour is a distant 3rd.

It looks good and will help motivate but there's going to have to be a shitload of work put in to turn that into an electoral impact.

Students at least can vote either at home or at uni address - so there's usually a tactical voting page going around to direct people to register where is "best".

# ¿ Sep 6, 2019 11:44

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Gonzo McFee posted:

Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader is partially due to a Labour mp bravely headbutting tories. Its more to do with Ed Miliband winning the nomination over his more right wing brother David due to the Union vote. Yer man slapping about some tories just gave cover to a bunch of changes done to strip the Unions of power so they could get a more right wing Labour leader.

This led to them lowering the bar of entry into Labour leadership elections and giving rise to the now infamous £3 to vote rule. The theory being that once the public saw yer Chuka Umanas, Liz Kendals and The knock off Clinton impersonator Yvette Coopers they'd flock to pay £3 to vote for these titans of charisma and stop the unions from electing Andy Burnham, who was a bit like Ed Miliband designed by committee.

Problems with this arose when Umuna quit due to not being able to cope with press attention. Rumours about this decision ranged from threats of him being exposed as gay to him being exposed as a coke fiend. I personally believe he just shat it. This led to there being a gap in the race which Jeremy Corbyn managed to get into at the last minute, mostly getting the required nominations from his fellow MP's from calls to widen debate or to watch the left fall flat on its face as it had done at previous leadership elections with Diane Abbot and John McDonnel before.

The second problem was that there was a lot more attention on this race than previous. The promise of more democracy and a right wing Labour leader drew press attention as they gathered to crown ether Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall the future of the party and brand Andy Burnham an insane Marxist and Jeremy Corbyn as some kind of novelty joke relic. This led to coverage of Corbyn that seems bizarre today as he's talked about as a decent guy but fundamentaly could never win. The debates were three near identical clones all echoing the line that Labour went too far to the left under Ed Miliband and had to accept this and Jeremy Corbyn saying the opposite. And then the leadership Polls came out. The public saw Corbyn and loved him. With Corbyn firmly in the lead suddenly he was the IRA HEZBOLA VENEZUELA NUKE BANNER to the press, the other candidates all scrambled to bargain with a membership that had gone hard left overnight and the labour right was saying £3 for a vote was a terrible system that was ripe for abuse even though it was originally theirs to abuse.

The third problem with it was that the Labour right were now so detached from their own party that they forgot their own history. Traditionally the Unions had been the right of the party, representing the reactionary and self protecting working class rather than the academic Marxists who made up the left. Once the left was purged in the late 70s to early 00's the unions became the left through being the last ones standing who weren't managerial neo liberals. By opening the voting process up to all the people they had alienated through the years to chase sun readers and waitrose shoppers they essentially guaranteed a sudden influx of left wing voters. Essentially they bought into their own bollocks and paid dearly.

The EU thing is just bollocks, a means of pushing the blame onto Corbyn for not standing side to side with David Cameron and making their jobs easier to film both of them. The EU referendum was pitched as a tory leadership story and Corbyn was mostly ignored. Its like blaming someone you refused to pass to for losing the game.

Another important fact is that all the other candidates, after Falkirk, refused to take union money for their leadership campaigns - as they didn't want to take heat from the media over it. This of course meant that when UNITE were looking for something to spend the political fund on, a Corbyn campaign got alot more of a hearing than Abbot's did in 2010. One of the first signs of a movement towards Corbyn was local parties endorsing him early on, a move that was at least partially organized by UNITE.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2019 06:07

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

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

goddamnedtwisto posted:

The problem with those Kryptonite locks isn't the lock, it's that the chain itself lasts about ten seconds against either bolt croppers or a decent grinder. Most bike security (i.e. for anything costing less than a decent car) isn't about stopping thieves outright anyway, it's about making the next bike along with the 20 quid Halfords u-lock that can be opened with a milk carton look more attractive.

The Kryptonite u-locks are very good for that - mine has many marks on it when people have tried to saw/grind through it, and given up, so it seems to work.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 09:43

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Jose posted:

telegram is what nazis moved onto

it's also oddly popular in Singapore.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2019 19:48

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Yea, many older middle class folks are going nuts over Brexit because it's thw first time in their lives politics is actually negativey affecting them. Labour is proposing fixes to a whole host of problems in this country, but if your not affected by the housing crisis, job market, student fees, climate change etc why would you care? You'll only talk about Brexit because it's the only thing that impacts your life.

it's not Corbyns fault remain ran a piss poor campaign either - They didn't have a coherent positive message about the EU and it showed.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2019 01:26

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

podcasting is Praxsis

# ¿ Sep 11, 2019 03:42

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Age I can deal with, but Sybil should be fat - or at the very least plump, or wearing clothes to the effect of making her look more massive than she is. And yea rare isn't mentioned, I do kinda want them to make all the upper crust black and the working poor white.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2019 08:54

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

RockyB posted:

I also subscribe to the spectator.

Seriously though, it's good to have a wide range of things to hate read. As much as I agree with the majority of this thread I'm conscious that it isn't just FBPEs at risk of bubbling themselves off from reality. So spectator for right wing nut jobs and book reviews. Guardian for FBPE champagne socialism. BBC for utter blandness. And this thread for incorrect opinions on monster munch.

Personally, I enjoy the Economist for this, as they are so unashamedly liberal that the brain worms are in prominent display.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2019 12:03

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Like, uni should be free but I think minimum grade requirements to go at 18 (CCC or equilvents, CCD if you're from deprived areas) would be a good thing to stop people drifting to university which they don't have the skills to make use of. Gonna wait if you're 21 then, by which time you probably know better if you actually want/need more education.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2019 01:02

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Given the constitutional crisis we're all in, I think a listen of the revolutions podcast on the English Civil war and the mess that started it. https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/2013/09/001-the-kingdoms-of-charles-stuart.html

# ¿ Sep 13, 2019 05:18

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Like, even without the empires stuff I think it's right to say "The world is turning into blocks, and the UK needs to pick one to join and share sovereignty with. The EU will give us a fairer deal than the US will and aligns with us better." Not a very convincing argument to the public though.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 10:56

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

ronya posted:

apropos of nothing: it is weird how little the net migration target scrap and the reintroduction of the post study work visa seems to have mattered to the usual suspects

brexit is now truly a culture war unmoored from immigration per se

The rhetoric of immigration taking jobs has only ever been applied to unskilled or semi skilled labour - "immigrants are taking all the jobs" has never been employed to the graduate labour market, oddly enough.

On another note, have just got back from Kuala Lumpur and it as a city feels very like Rome, with the chaos, traffic and smells. Given I was in the centre of the richest city where they were trying hard to cosplay as westerners that's not ideal, but at least it was cheap.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 16:59

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

ronya posted:

that was the New Labour concept and it was indeed deeply resented by a certain kind of Tory voter demographic aware of the competition around the campus milk-runs

Kuala Lumpur grew organically rather than by any conscious act of urban planning, with highway megaprojects and reserved kampungs driving much of the layout. When it puts its heart to it, it tries to be Abu Dhabi though. Did you visit Putrajaya?

I definitely noticed the dubai attempts - went up Petronaa towers, saw Batu caves, wondered around chinatown/garden area with the museums. Didn't visit Putrajaya since we were just in KL for the weekend, not a onerous trip from Singapore.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2019 18:28

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

D. Ebdrup posted:

Being in that state of thinking that I'm not interesting to anyone is something I'm definitely guilty of because for most of school I was bullied, but I'm at a point in my life where, while I've previously dated people - because to a degree I at least got somewhat over thinking I was undesirable - so while I still have lascivious thoughts about beautiful/handsome people or people who I'm attracted to on a more personal level, those thoughts don't control my actions - and I haven't really had a need for a physical relationship in quite a long time.
It just sort of worked out that way, I guess.

I do wonder if society has changed, though - is it still the way of things that it's more common for men to express an interest in women, or have women started expressing a more clear interest in men? Because it sometimes seems that way to me, and it's great if it is changing - but it might just be that I'm in some sort of a bubble because of the people I talk to, and because I don't have much recent experience.

I think that society in general has removed the "old" way for men to show their interest in women (read: harassment) from the social fabric, but the media hasn't really showed anything new in it's place as cohesive messsge yet, so many men are understandably confused what they "should" be doing. Look at recent teen movies and tv shows and how they depict relationships - they mostly skip over the "asking each other out" stage these days. And while tindee and online dating may exsist it is an utter soul crushing nightmare for men to use, and the other typical way people get into relationships ( meeting friends of friends ) still suffers this problem.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2019 03:08

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

thespaceinvader posted:

I checked in for a couple of years, but was largely unimpressed and unclear about what exactly was desired of generic members who suck at doorstepping, especially in non-election years, and found that they weren't really set up to take advantage of the skills i do have.

So now I pay my dues and vote in the party-wide elections, but mostly keep to myself.

The weird thing about doorstepping (and the bit no one explains to you) is that the important thing isn't what questions you ask them or any conversations in people's minds, but just a physical reminder that the labour party exists and is interested in You, random person #5246. Most people are low-information voters who don't think hard about politics - someone just asking politely on your doorstep if you're going to vote for them is a big reminder and positive point in their favour. It's true CLPs often don't care or make use of those who are unable or unwilling to doorstep properly (as those in CLPs full time often have been doing that), but there's also terrible communication about it's purpose.

Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Sep 16, 2019

# ¿ Sep 16, 2019 14:13

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1173836171903930368?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1173846435286179840?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1173846438545166336?s=20

As someone who's been hanging on the edges of labour student movements for awhile, "lack of democracy" is underselling it - Labour students have been ignoring it's own conference decisions and rigging elections since 2014 (it predates Corbyn as an issue) to keep it as a blairite controlled path to power, hence most labour clubs giving up and disaffiliating over last year or two. About time the NEC did something.

Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Sep 17, 2019

# ¿ Sep 17, 2019 11:58

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Vlex posted:

Has the FTPA made it harder to get rid of a government? Without it, would May have been out sooner?

Without the FTPA, May would have the power to go to the rebels "either you vote for my deal, or I call an election on my deal." With it, Tories could safely rebel without risking an election or Corbyn coming to power, a bluff May could have (and I think would have) made without it.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2019 16:04

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

On brexit here's corbyns article on staying neutral in a referendum

"Jeremy Corbyn posted:

Boris Johnson and the Conservatives are threatening to drive our country over a no-deal cliff edge in six weeks� time. He has no mandate for that and is opposed by a majority of the public. Since he became prime minister in July, Johnson has been defeated on every vote he has put to parliament. Now his undemocratic manoeuvrings and his decision to close down parliament and avoid accountability are being challenged in the supreme court. Johnson�s visit to Luxembourg on Monday was a further humiliation. The prime minister went to Europe with no plan and no proposals, and did his best to hide from scrutiny while he was there.

Three years ago Johnson backed Brexit because he thought it would boost his political career � writing one article in favour of remain and another backing leave. Now he�s backing no deal because he thinks it�s politically expedient � to win back votes from the Brexit party and keep his Tory Brexit ultras on board. At the same time he needs to look like he�s trying for a deal to hold his cabinet and parliamentary party together.

There is nothing new in Johnson�s shenanigans. Theresa May signed up to contradictory red lines on Brexit to keep the Conservatives from falling apart, and David Cameron called the referendum in the first place to see off the threat from Ukip.

The Brexit saga of the past few years has been a litany of Tory failures, as one Conservative prime minister after another has put their own and their party�s interests before the interests of the people and our country. Now we face crashing out of the EU next month without a deal, just to save Johnson�s job. We know from Amber Rudd, who resigned from his cabinet this month, that there is little effort going into securing a deal with the EU � in fact it is hard to see any sign of real effort at all. That came after leaked reports that the prime minister�s negotiations are a �sham� and no deal is the real goal.

In the teeth of No 10 resistance, parliament secured the release of the confidential Yellowhammer papers, setting out the government�s preparations for no deal. The government�s own analysis found the UK would be at risk of food and medicine shortages, and face chaos at key ports. It also exposed that ministers had deliberately misled the public. They told us there would be no food or medicine shortages, when their own internal reports showed that there would be.

Yellowhammer has raised the stakes even higher. Johnson�s reckless no-deal Brexit would threaten jobs and living standards and increase food prices. And it would pave the way for a one-sided trade deal with Donald Trump that could only be negotiated from a position of weakness.

It would not be a no-deal Brexit, but a Trump-deal Brexit, with a race to the bottom in our rights and protections sold to US corporations.

Nor would no deal be a �clean break�, as some imagine. It would not mean we could �just get on with it�. In reality it would be the start of a whole new period of confusion and delay, as a string of new agreements would have to be hammered out with the EU � but this time against a backdrop of rising unemployment, deepening poverty, and entire industries moving offshore.

Labour will do everything necessary to stop a disastrous no deal, with all the chaos, disruption and job losses it would lead to � and the serious threat it would pose to the Northern Ireland peace process. That�s why we worked with other parties across parliament to pass a law to stop us crashing out at the end of next month.

But as soon as no deal is off the table, and the prime minister has complied with the law, we need a general election to get rid of Johnson�s Tory government. That election will be about much more than Brexit. It will be a choice between a Labour government that will put wealth and power in the hands of the many, and Johnson�s born-to-rule Conservatives who will look after the privileged few. It will be about who will truly end austerity and deliver the change Britain needs, invest in every region and nation of our country, and rebuild our public services, communities and industry.

The people of Britain deserve to have their say in a general election. Only a Labour government would end the Brexit crisis by taking the decision back to the people. We will give the people the final say on Brexit, with the choice of a credible leave offer and remain.

A Labour government would secure a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers� rights and environmental protections. We would then put that to a public vote alongside remain. I will pledge to carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister.

We are the only UK-wide party ready to put our trust in the people of Britain to make the decision. Johnson wants to crash out with no deal. That is something opposed by business, industry, the trade unions and most of the public � and even by the Vote Leave campaign�s co-convener Michael Gove, who said earlier this year: �We didn�t vote to leave without a deal.�

And now the Liberal Democrats want MPs to overturn the referendum result by revoking article 50 in a parliamentary stitch-up. It is simply undemocratic to override the decision of a majority of the voters without going back to the people.

Labour is the only party determined to bring people together, and give the people the final say. Only a vote for Labour will deliver a public vote on Brexit. Only a Labour government will put the power back into the hands of the people. Let�s stop a no-deal Brexit � and let the people decide.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2019 09:32

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Jippa posted:

It was when they run around the country with the olympic torch (so 2012?) some goon said he was going to disrupt it I think. I can't remember more details than that.

I always thought that gchq must watch this forum because of the middle east thread must throw up so many flags given how many place names and keywords it must trigger.

IIRC, the goon in question had also posted to Twitter that he might do something and was probably rumbled through that rather than SA, so the UKMT might be safe yet.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2019 08:04

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Whitlam posted:

I had this question too (before the subsequent links and further info), and more just generally "how is this likely to play with the general public?" Because here in Australia it would be political suicide, regardless of how much I personally like it, but different countries and all so maybe it'll be popular/not instant suicide in the UK?

most UK faith schools are actually state funded, but no one gives a poo poo about their actual faithfulness. No one really cares about their existence that much either- the biggest impact would probably be on muslim labour voting ommunities than any Christian backlash.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2019 12:02

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

Whitlam posted:

Are all/most of the private schools in the UK faith based? Here it's similar, where a lot of private schools might technically be Catholic or Anglican or whatever but parents probably aren't sending them there for that reason. As I say, here it would be political suicide (even parents of kids at public schools would oppose it), so I'm curious to see how much support it gets amongst the general public in the UK by way of comparison.

Like, same my school had a reverend who gave weekly sermon-like speeches (also taught RE) but no one gave a poo poo. "Abolishing faith schools" would be less controversial that abolishing private schools completely though, we're really irreligious here.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2019 12:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 18:39

Nothingtoseehere: Nov 11, 2010

I went to a state school till Year 9 then was moved to an academic-focused private school, and I enjoyed the experience - I certainly got bullied less and it was a better environment for me, as kids actually cared about studying and not failing. But £90,000 for the privilege was exorbitant and I think the most important thing about it was just being a school full of upper-middle class kids whose parents cared about education, than any of the fancy buildings or trips to the Galapagos islands. Would be nice if such and experience was available to the whole population and not just those rich enough, though.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2019 15:34

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

«‹›2 »