UKMT Summer 2020 - Two Pints of Saline and Abacavir for Drip

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Summer 2020 - Two Pints of Saline and Abacavir for Drip

«‹›3 »

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Jose posted:

why is the new speaker allowing this vote on ending remote voting go ahead?

it'd be an unprecedented power grab to block it. like on what grounds could he do that.
the motions been laid, now parliament can vote it down if they don't like it. democracy!

# ¿ Jun 2, 2020 13:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:43

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Deketh posted:

Is the government expected to win this vote on proxy voting?
Unless I'm misunderstanding things, it seems a painfully transparent motion to limit participation and scrutiny, it's crazy how JRM can just spout some nonsense about getting the house running again amidst social distancing when, of course, proxy voting precludes the need for social distancing in the first place. And that's a fine and normal position for a responsible adult to take, he means it and there's no ulterior motive or anything you guys. Even if there are genuine concerns about the virtual process, maybe try some new methods.
"I don't accept that MPs unable to take part in person are being disenfranchised," says a man who is literally disenfranchising MPs by making it harder and more dangerous, maybe even impossible, for them to vote.

when it was first mooted a lot of people were saying obviously the government expects to lose. they didn't actually even want to win, just setting it up so could say "look it's parliament imposed this on us, not our fault" like with the final Brexit extension. so the public wouldn't look at MPs still staying home and get narked that we were expected to be back working as normal. and playing to the peanut gallery for the people who really do value the tradition above all else (JRM's fan club)
but nope, now it really looks like they're going all in on it. that desperate to have the cheering squad in behind Johnson when has to face off against Starmer each week.

a bit mad isn't it

# ¿ Jun 2, 2020 16:50

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

that's not specific to poor door flats. it's practically standard across every new build leasehold agreement that you pretty much can't use your balcony for anything or put up any decoration.
blanket ban easier than the management having to actually intervene and mediate on the odd occasion someone might do something stupid that does affect the neighbouring flats.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2020 16:58

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

XMNN posted:

yeah they voted to abolish the remote voting although I think they may have u turned slightly on completely disenfranchising shielding MPs by giving them a proxy vote

they can conference call to for debates but no proxy votes AFAIK. that's still for maternity cover only.

pairing is back on since the election happened & the end of minority government. so MPs self isolating aren't in effect screwed out totally since someone from the other side will be taken out to counter the lost vote.
will be a bit hosed if there's a big surge in the number of MPs who can't or refuse to go in and pairing totally breaks down.
between dealing with the pandemic, global recession, and end of Brexit transition without a trade deal I doubt the long overdue expansion of proxy voting could possibly have time to get a look in.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2020 20:53

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

feedmegin posted:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/03/mps-shielding-from-covid-19-allowed-proxy-vote-in-johnson-u-turn

cheers. totally missed that this afternoon :eng99:

# ¿ Jun 3, 2020 21:10

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

(still, AFAIK, the only Chinese actor to get a leading role in a prime time show on British TV)

I never watched Humans but doesn't that make Gemma Chan number two?

# ¿ Jun 3, 2020 23:43

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

forkboy84 posted:

The only way my morale will be improved by a new Royal Yacht is if we taxpayers all get a time share of it. I bagsy 2 weeks next July.

2 weeks? just how high are you expecting the covid death rate to go?

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 09:25

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Oh dear me posted:

I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it.

it's a truism as old as the internet that people don't read past the headline. but I think recently on this forum it's been getting worse.
hypothesis is that it's because the old custom of copying & pasting the whole article text has been usurped by embedding a tweet. hardly nobody is actually clicking on the links are they?

so, suggestion for the mods. make a rule that people have to copy the article, or at least the relevant parts they are wanting us to take an interest in if it's a 10,000 word epic.
no-one ever cared before that was technically a copyright breach, and won't care now.
could volunteer this thread as a guinea pig before deciding to make it a forum wide rule.

what do people think?

quote:

�In a way, if you look at eligibility for Universal Credit, people are not wrong.

�You can make significant contributions to the system and find that actually, you�re not really eligible for any major support if you need it, even in a crisis like this one.

�I think you�ve got to recognise that that�s a big problem for working people in the UK.�

The Labour frontbencher added: �When you�re looking at how you design or change the system going forward, certainly I feel if you have made greater contributions to the system, there is an argument that you should receive more out of that system.

�It doesn�t mean that you will ever be leaving people without support or leaving them destitute.

�But I simply feel that that lack of a connection between what you put in and what you get out has become a major problem of social security and the political support for it.�

and so on. remove the savings cutoff, two-child limit, benefits cap, 5 week wait & no recourse to public funds bar. add statutory sick pay for all.
I'm seeing a lot of good suggestions, that were to be fair not far from the 2 Corbyn era manifestos.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 09:52

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

kingturnip posted:

Even if he means something else, this is stupid, since most people (like me, apparently) don't read much beyond the headline

most people have never heard of, never mind read Politics Home.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 09:54

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Bobstar posted:

Fair points, but this article doesn't so much elaborate on the headline as restate it, along side a bunch of semi-related good things.

What does "if you have made greater contributions to the system, there is an argument that you should receive more out of that system" mean? Without elaboration, it just sounds like the dogwhistle that we all reacted to in the headline.

It sounds like it could be a prelude to a needs based system rather than a means based one - e.g. a pandemic has ruined your income, so you can have benefits based on what you need (i.e. your outgoings), and regardless of things like savings cutoffs and child limits as you say. But that still isn't really based on greater contributions - if you just started living in expensive London when the pandemic (or regular scheduled capitalism recession) hits, you might not have contributed much yet.

Or is it an argument for universalism? But again the more in = more out seems at odds with that.

my reading is it's an argument for universalism. everyone is eligible without means tests and caps and so on, and at a higher level that now with leaves people destitute.
but on top of that can pay out more to people who've paid more in. this concept already exists in the state pension which counts your NI contribution years.
this is framed as a way to sell the concept of state social security to people who are currently paying in, but not receiving payouts out who otherwise just see it as a wealth transfer from themselves to "scroungers".

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 10:11

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Guavanaut posted:

It's still a poo poo headline for assholes, but that'll be on the subeditor or whoever they've streamlined that down to in this exciting age of digital entreprejournalism.

undoubtably
if I could ban headlines as a concept I would

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 10:13

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Bobstar posted:

(sorry cerv I know this isn't your policy that you must defend, just thinking out loud really)

yeah, everyone knows I'm actually Keir Starmer, not junior minister who's name I can't remember

don't apologise. I'm just thinking out loud too. yours & Guavanaut's last post both really helpful

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 11:06

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Darth Walrus posted:

Safety nets aren't selective, though. They're loving nets. They cushion anyone who drops into them. They don't require anyone to fill out a form first to see if they're eligible to hit the net rather than the floor.

Oh dear me posted:

You have to fill in the form so they can assess your proximity to the floor. It has always meant means testing.

exactly
safety net rhetoric justifies things like the savings cap in UC. if you've still got �15k in the bank you've not fallen yet. have to burn through your life savings first before the state will support you.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 11:41

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Ash Crimson posted:

what if you have 3-4k in the bank

then your savings are ignored for UC. everything under 6k is.
up to 16k your entitlement is tapered off by �4.35 for every 250.
over 16k you're entitlement to UC is zero. not 15k, I misremembered. so you're expected to spend your savings on supporting yourself before the state will support. means testing innit

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 13:20

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

XMNN posted:

ugh

so you can just block the opposition parties appointments and then appoint someone else who's not a member of that party in their place?

our political system is a pile of poo poo

e: at least he's old and might die soon, but more likely he's one of the shriveled old ghouls who lives to 101, actively making everyone else's lives worse the whole time until someone finally finds his phylactery

Field's not a replacement for Watson or the other two of Corbyn's nominations who were also blocked. only Corbyn could nominate substitutes, and he's declined to do so.
Field's been separately nominated as a cross bencher & seems he would've gotten in whether Watson was ever on the list or not.

it's a shite system and totally opaque, but not quite that bad

fingers crossed he's one of the many Lords who never turns up for any vote or other parliamentary business.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2020 23:25

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Algol Star posted:

I thought initially it was just a bad coronavirus take but while the author superficially says the right things about the BLM protests it reads almost exactly like the American right wing anti protest hot takes. The thrust basically boils down to 'how can you say lockdown was important and now support the protests' which has been one of the main anti BLM talking points as well as focusing disproportionately on the looting.

because it is an American right wing anti protest take
author's not a regular Guardian columnist. it's a guest piece by a NYT writer.

# ¿ Jun 8, 2020 10:39

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

thespaceinvader posted:

The beaten up rusty Colston can go in a museum somewhere in a display of 'poo poo we used to do to honour horrible people' along with Churchill and all the slaver generals from the US revolutionary war.

I was thinking that yesterday. the statue is now a piece of history that deserves preservation for future generations to learn about the 2020s.
but what's the appropriate length of time to wait before fishing it out?

# ¿ Jun 8, 2020 10:44

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Isomermaid posted:

When there's a general agreement that there is racial equality in the UK. It should stay in the river until then, gathering barnacles. The more hosed up it looks by the time it comes out will be a signifier of how much we didn't listen.

I like the way you think

# ¿ Jun 8, 2020 10:55

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

when the directly elected mayor of the city wanted the statue down, but couldn't get it done what more evidence do you need that sometimes democracy fails?

# ¿ Jun 8, 2020 11:54

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Jose posted:

isn't necessarily an mp

might even be using a nom de plume for his hatemail :o

# ¿ Jun 9, 2020 21:27

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

worth reading for the revelation that Milliband says "gently caress" (who would've thought?) and the sharp dig he gets in at the FT half way.

quote:

https://www.ft.com/content/ef6b2633-5d74-413b-86c9-956fbfabac72
The reinvention of Ed Miliband
Labour�s former leader is back and still convinced it�s time for capitalism to change. Can he make an impact?

5 hours ago

Ed Miliband is back, but he admits some people will be wondering: why? The man who beat his elder brother in the most famous episode of political fratricide in British history, then led the Labour party to catastrophic election defeat, helpfully suggests how our interview to discuss his return to the frontline might be framed: �Relic or relevant? That could be your headline!�

Five years in the political wilderness have sharpened Miliband�s appetite. Restored to Labour�s top team, the man dubbed �Red Ed� by the tabloids has been handed the job of designing the party�s future for a post-Covid British economy, with a brief covering business and climate change. Miliband, 50, insists that the world is a very different place from that harrowing night in 2015 when he left the political stage in despair. �Reforming capitalism is tough and there is big resistance to it,� he says. �But I think the mood has changed.�

He contends that while the financial crash was an insufficient trigger for fundamental change, the social angst exposed by Brexit and the fragility of a global system laid bare by the coronavirus crisis have transformed the political landscape. He is convinced that Britain is now ready to embrace his vision of an active state working in �partnership� with the private sector and driving a green revolution. �The notion that the state just gets out of the way and that will then make for success � that has been buried by this crisis,� he says. �We�ve seen the state and business working together necessarily.�

Perceptions of Miliband have also undergone a transformation in the past few years. He admits the pressures of the Labour leadership turned him into something of an automaton. He was widely portrayed as a hapless figure apparently unable to eat a bacon sandwich and whose idea of a good stunt was to carve a series of pledges on to a 9ft slab of lime, gleefully dubbed the �EdStone� by the media.

But today, in a video interview from his north London home, he is all animation � his arms appear to be in permanent motion � self-deprecating and jokey, sprinkling our conversation with expletives. �What kind of loving question is that?� he expostulates at one point.

�It feels strange how much everything has changed,� says Abby Tomlinson, who started the ��Milifandom� movement to counter his portrayal in the media in 2015, when she was a sixth-form student (fittingly, she now works in communications). �Now people see him as someone who is up for a laugh, who can make a joke. He�s got good, intelligent ideas and has a wealth of knowledge and experience.�

But is that really enough for Miliband�s second coming to have a significant impact?

A Miliband renaissance of any kind seemed highly improbable in May 2015, when he resigned as Labour leader after taking the party to a disastrous defeat that incurred a net loss of seats on just 30 per cent of the vote. �I was mildly disappointed,� he says with an ironic smile. �OK, I was pretty devastated. It was also, I felt, devastating for the country.�

In his place the party picked the far-left rank outsider Jeremy Corbyn, a consequence in part of a decision Miliband made to allow grassroots members more say over the choice of leader. As Labour headed deeper into its ideological � and electorally barren � comfort zone, Miliband went off to see friends in Australia, growing a beard and reflecting on his failure.

He takes little comfort from the fact that after he stepped down, Conservative leaders Theresa May and Boris Johnson moved on to Labour�s turf to adopt some of his policies, including an energy price cap and more active state intervention, higher public spending and regional activism. �Vindication doesn�t do much for me,� he says.

Corbyn famously responded to his decisive election defeat last year by claiming he had �won the argument� but Miliband is not about to follow suit. �I take responsibility for having lost that [2015] election,� he says. �The notion that the show was great but the audience was poor is not one that I subscribe to. I think that I wasn�t bold enough . . . [that] there was more of an appetite for change than I perhaps realised.�

Instead, he pursued a soft-left agenda promising to take on economic �predators�, to rein in privatised monopolies and to undertake some limited redistribution. He was unable to dent the central message of David Cameron�s Conservative party that the country needed more austerity to sort out the mess left by the financial crash, or to expose the danger posed to the economy by Cameron�s pledge of a Brexit referendum, a policy opposed by Labour.

�There was modest social democratic reform, which is essentially what I was offering, versus the gamble of the European referendum,� he says. �A paper like the FT preferred the gamble and I think quite a lot of business preferred the gamble. They underestimated the gamble, I think.�

He admits there were aspects of the top job he didn�t handle well. �I think there�s something about being the leader of the Labour party which imposes big pressures and I think I probably succumbed too much.� He says he was �robotic� at times, desperately trying to look like a prime-minister-in-waiting, warily viewing every bacon sandwich as a disaster waiting to happen.

Yet, even in the aftermath of defeat, Miliband �never really thought about leaving politics�. He decided not to follow his father Ralph Miliband, the renowned Marxist academic, into an ivory tower and instead returned to the back benches as MP for Doncaster North. And then, rather against everybody�s expectations, something remarkable happened. �The public discovered I had a personality,� he smiles, his hands pushing deep into his slightly greying hair.

As Miliband was about to be reminded, there is nothing the British public loves more than a loser. Where previously his academic air and occasionally goofy looks had proved an electoral liability, now they combined with a waspish and hitherto-suppressed sense of humour to create a more intriguing package. One of the earliest signs of this reinvention came in 2017 when, with the broadcaster Geoff Lloyd, Miliband launched the Reasons to be Cheerful podcast, an affable look at political ideas, on which he owns a made-up dog called �Chutney�, and even burst into a rendition of �We All Stand Together� by Paul McCartney & The Frog Chorus. According to Miliband, the podcast pulls in 60,000-80,000 listeners a week.

Other offers started to come in from unlikely places, Miliband recalls, including a proposed reality-TV show where �you had to get fit and then show your fit bod�. He turned that down, along with opportunities to appear on other shows such as Drive, Dancing on Ice and � he archly notes � the �after-show� party on I�m a Celebrity. �Oh, and Celebrity Bake Off.� As he reels off the list, Miliband sounds relieved that the public eventually got to see another side of him. The demands of leading Labour had, he says tactfully, put him �in a certain space with a certain persona, which can be problematic�.

Miliband�s spell in charge of Labour ended badly, but it began in the bitterest of circumstances too. It was the fag end of the New Labour era, as the party�s 13-year dominance of British politics came to an end, when he succeeded Gordon Brown on September 25 2010. On a day of agonising drama, he unexpectedly beat his elder brother David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, to take the party crown.

As Miliband was about to be reminded, there is nothing the British public loves more than a loser. Where previously his academic air and occasionally goofy looks had proved an electoral liability, now they combined with a waspish and hitherto-suppressed sense of humour to create a more intriguing package. One of the earliest signs of this reinvention came in 2017 when, with the broadcaster Geoff Lloyd, Miliband launched the Reasons to be Cheerful podcast, an affable look at political ideas, on which he owns a made-up dog called �Chutney�, and even burst into a rendition of �We All Stand Together� by Paul McCartney & The Frog Chorus. According to Miliband, the podcast pulls in 60,000-80,000 listeners a week.

Other offers started to come in from unlikely places, Miliband recalls, including a proposed reality-TV show where �you had to get fit and then show your fit bod�. He turned that down, along with opportunities to appear on other shows such as Drive, Dancing on Ice and � he archly notes � the �after-show� party on I�m a Celebrity. �Oh, and Celebrity Bake Off.� As he reels off the list, Miliband sounds relieved that the public eventually got to see another side of him. The demands of leading Labour had, he says tactfully, put him �in a certain space with a certain persona, which can be problematic�.

Miliband�s spell in charge of Labour ended badly, but it began in the bitterest of circumstances too. It was the fag end of the New Labour era, as the party�s 13-year dominance of British politics came to an end, when he succeeded Gordon Brown on September 25 2010. On a day of agonising drama, he unexpectedly beat his elder brother David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, to take the party crown.

His decision to return to the front bench in April, when new Labour leader Keir Starmer offered him the post of shadow business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, reflects this belief that Britain is on the cusp of great change. He argues that the cumulative effect of the 2008 financial crash, the public dissatisfaction with the status quo expressed in the 2016 Brexit referendum, and the convulsions caused by Covid-19 make profound reform unavoidable, and says the state has a key role to play. He cites the example of retraining laid-off Rolls-Royce aircraft engine-makers: �They could be incredibly useful to the future of our renewables industry.�

Miliband is also an admirer of Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions whom he encouraged to stand for parliament back in 2015 and whom he describes as �an incredibly decent bloke with incredibly good values�. And yet he admits, �I had to think hard about coming back now, in truth, because my last experience of the frontline was pretty full-on�.

He adds that his wife, high-court judge Justine Thornton, �might agree with that description�. Their sons Sam and Daniel are aged nine and 11 respectively. �These are pretty critical years. I wouldn�t recommend losing an election but one of the virtues for me was that it allowed me to be a proper father and husband. So these are difficult dilemmas. But I�m glad I decided to come back.�

So Ed Miliband is back. Whether he can help Labour overhaul an 80-seat Tory majority at the next election to implement any of the above ideas remains a huge question. �I think it�s a big mountain to climb, we shouldn�t be under any illusions about that,� he says. �But I think this is a moment of reassessment. You�ve got to go out and make your arguments and see where we are.�

He believes that under Starmer�s leadership, there is at least a prospect of the party presenting a united front at the next election after five years of �incredibly damaging factionalism�. �Most people say, �Let�s bury our differences,�� he adds. �We�re good at burying our similarities.�

So far Starmer has made it his mission to appear statesmanlike and to sideline the Corbynites without trumpeting the fact. The new Labour leader, like Miliband, believes soft-left social democracy will strike a chord with voters who can see the state coming to their rescue in the face of a pandemic.

Peter Mandelson, a leading Blairite, fears that Labour may be about to make a huge strategic mistake. �People can see the difference between emergency measures and normal times,� he says. �We would be fooling ourselves if we thought the country, as a result of the Covid experience, is now ready for some ideological project to usher in state control of the economy.�

But Stewart Wood, who was Miliband�s consigliere during his leadership, says his former boss has come through the �brutal� experience of election defeat and his moment has now arrived. �Ed spent his time as leader of the opposition trying to get rewriting the rules of our economy up in lights . . . It wasn�t enough for us to win in 2015. But the Covid crisis has made the question of rebuilding our economy the central question of the next few years.�

As for the most famous sibling rivalry in British politics, Miliband says that relations with his elder brother are healing. �He�s in New York � we talk quite a lot. We talk about my mum, we talk about the world, we talk about the pandemic. It happened a long time ago.�

Indeed, it is easy to see Ed Miliband�s own time in the furnace of British politics as ancient history. The pre-Brexit, pre-Covid era seems a lifetime ago; contemporaries such as Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg are long gone.

But he insists that he is still relevant, not a relic. �There�s this Milton Friedman line about when a crisis hits, it�s the ideas that are lying around that get picked up�. Miliband�s gamble is that his career, like his ideas, can yet be retrieved from the floor.

George Parker is the FT�s political editor. Jim Pickard is the FT�s chief political correspondent

Follow @FTMag on Twitter to find out about our latest stories first. Listen to our podcast, Culture Call, where FT editors and special guests discuss life and art in the time of coronavirus. Subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

I once passed Ed Milliband going the opposite direction through Regent's Park on my morning commute. didn't stop to say "I wish you'd won in 15" because he was on his phone at the time.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2020 10:12

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Johnson has announced that single people living alone may gently caress again.
But only by obeying a set of restrictions like something out of a Crystal Maze puzzle.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2020 17:36

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Prince John posted:

People are really over-analysing Harry Potter in their haste to gotcha JK Rowling over the last few days ITT.

days? it feels like years. people are obsessed with her and the books / movies.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 12:18

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

massive news being snuck out today

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/12/brexit-uk-expected-to-backtrack-on-full-eu-border-checks

come January the government will not be enforcing border checks on goods coming into the country. which is obviously an open invitation to avoid any kind of import duty. cheap booze and fags for all!

blaming the additional impact of compliance being too much on business on top how they've been hit by the pandemic. but in reality they're just still totally unprepared to have the necessary infrastructure and staff to actually operate a border.
this goes back to May's insistence on leaving the single market / customs union, but not seriously prepare for that. and Johnson's government doubled down on that.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 12:23

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Guavanaut posted:

I think the scene is supposed to build the character of the Major as a meandering old-man-conversation haver and also an obsessive kind of racist (with a subtext that the governance of the Empire was full of meandering racists).

There was a bit of "tee hee we can get some bad words in here" to that specific speech, and most TV networks have opted to trim it, so it's debatable how much it adds in character building.

like that. the show is mocking the Major and people like him clinging to their old ways in the face of modernity. who at the time most everyone in the audience will know someone like that.
the actual joke is just that when he says "you can't say that" it's setting up for "because racism is bad now" but then he goes in the opposite direction with a bit of shock value too. not a particularly original composition.
and by contrast with Fawlty soften his character a bit. yes, Basil is a poo poo person and every episode is built around showing how poo poo he is, but he's not the worst person in the world.

OwlFancier posted:

I've seen, like, clips of it, but if I'm honest I don't really find john cleese very funny outside of his work in python and even that isn't really my favourite since I stopped being a teenager. Honestly all sitcom stuff just lands pretty flat on me, even ignoring the entire format of television that I find pretty offputting.

I haven't watched TV in at least a decade and I'm not sure if I could go back to it.

doing yourself a disservice if you've never seen A Fish Called Wanda. one of the best comedy films ever made imho

# ¿ Jun 12, 2020 12:32

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Aramoro posted:

Why are people even trying to defend war memorials? No one is trying to remove them.

Someone did try (and fail) to burn the flag on it last week.
In any crowd there�s always one idiot.

Even though the culprit�s been arrested far right Twitter have done a Reddit to identify someone else entirely for abuse. Poor guy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53010198

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 12:58

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Jippa posted:

Fawlty Towers ep put back up with a language warning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53032895

That�s a real �there wasn�t one already?� moment right there

# ¿ Jun 13, 2020 13:03

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

ronya posted:

there's a great deal of active revisionism in it and I sense that Hatherley sees himself as publishing a manifesto rather than engaging in a historical narrative

London was never left-wing in the isolationist Bennite AES mold; Hatherley constructs a narrative of left continuity by ignoring it

that's fine in the manifesto sense that Hatherley probably doesn't want the left to draw on that particular element of its past, but it's exceptionally relevant to the narrative of the decline of particular ways of economic production and the rise of others - the triumph of the cities is a global phenomenon, not just in the UK

that renders the closing rallying cries - a somewhat confused plea to shrink London and rely on other parts of England to pick up the slack - a little strange

ultimately a more powerful municipal government of London could sustain public services in London much more easily by not subsidizing the rest of the country so much, but that's no way for a socialist to treat the hinterland either

the closing section confuses me.

quote:

London�s government should not be afraid to be confrontational with the powers-that-be, in the interest of its citizens. The powers the gla has managed to squeeze out of Parliament, compared to its cousins in Cardiff and Edinburgh, has been minimal. Demand them, and put them in the London Plan, the only really powerful instrument the Mayor has. If he won�t, the gla needs to change the Plan, something the campaign group Just Space has already called for.

because the Mayor's office can demand all it wants, but if central government says no that's that. there's no mechanism to force further devolution from a Tory government opposed to it. in Hatherley's history above he does not mention that requests for TfL to take over more national rail commuter routes had been repeatedly rebuffed. (same with any other further expansion of the Mayor's powers really but that's the only headline grabber). I suspect that omission was deliberate because it undermines the rallying call rather than an oversight in his history.
and does he mean for the London Assembly to override the Mayor's London Plan if it isn't radical enough? by his own admissions the LA is a powerless body that only exists to wield a rubber stamp for approval. That's interesting that Momentum has an organised slate to shift the LA Labour group leftwards after the next election, but then what? what can they actually do in conflict with a more centrist Labour Mayor, when presumably Khan wins a second term.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2020 19:56

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Vitamin P posted:

Paywalled too obviously, he's such a streak of poo poo,

of Starmer's faults I don't think we can blame him for Murdoch corp's pricing model

quote:

https://archive.vn/bep5E

Labour has sought to avoid being dragged into the debate over trans rights after it emerged that the government is considering scrapping plans to allow people to self-declare their legal gender.
Ministers have drawn up proposals that would kill off plans set out under Theresa May to let transgender people �self-identify� as a different gender without the need for medical oversight.
Measures designed to prevent people with male anatomy using female lavatories and domestic violence refuges have also been included in a package drawn up by Liz Truss, the equalities minister. A ban on gay conversion therapies has been included to head off criticism from equalities campaigners.
It is understood that Boris Johnson has not yet considered the plans in detail, because of the coronavirus crisis.
The Sunday Times reported that a paper is �basically ready� and could be put in front of MPs before the Commons� summer recess at the end of July.
Any such proposals would cause a headache for Sir Keir Starmer after disputes over the intersection of trans rights with feminism overshadowed the Labour leadership election. Sir Keir was the only candidate not to sign a pledge calling on the party to expel members with �transphobic� views. He instead tried to take the heat out of the issue.
Last week JK Rowling was criticised by the stars of the Harry Potter films after she used her experience of domestic violence to express concerns about female-only spaces and warn against attempts to �erode �woman� as a political and biological class�.
Labour has committed itself to reform of the Gender Recognition Act and David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, said: �There�s now a change of view that people ought to be able to self-identify and not over-medicalise.� But he declined to go further, telling the BBC: �We would have to look at the legislation when it comes forward in detail.�
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow home secretary, criticised the government for briefing journalists after the decision had been made behind closed doors, saying that �we need to listen very carefully going forward in what is an extremely sensitive area�.
He told Sky News�s Sophy Ridge on Sunday: �I�m not sure the government just scrapping plans and then leaking it out in a newspaper is the way to deal with this, you need a much better way that�s sensitive, that seeks consensus and respects everybody�s rights.�
However, there is anger in the wider Labour Party about the timing of the plans. Ben Bradshaw, a senior backbencher, accused Mr Johnson of trying to �weaponise the transgender issue to pour more fuel on the culture wars fire�, saying he was �despicable� for doing so with far-right violence on the streets.
Those wanting to change gender have to show two doctors� reports showing they are suffering from gender dysphora, and that they have lived in their gender for at least two years. Trans campaigners say the process is complex and demeaning and in 2018 the government led a consultation on removing the need for diagnosis.
Chiara Capraro, of Amnesty International, said �a U-turn on this would send a chilling message that the UK is a hostile place for trans people�. Nancy Kelley, chief executive of Stonewall, said: �These reforms would have made many trans people�s lives much easier.�

at least Labour are calling out the government's lovely move here. obviously trying to stoke up another culture war because Cummings & Johnson want to be in a permanent campaigning mode rather than actually governing.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 01:12

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

couldn't just buy one of BA's jets on the cheap? those already have the union jack on the tail and I think they might have a few going spare right now.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2020 10:12

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

it's a vital service for all the the undersigned posters in this thread who want to read his tweets but for some reason don't just sign up for a twitter account and follow him

-

* tumble weed *

# ¿ Jun 17, 2020 17:50

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

isn't the sculpture listed for its historical significance? then deciding to get rid of it will only be the start of a long process.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2020 22:24

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

as loathe as I am to bring US politics in here, this amused me about our place in the world order

quote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53086042

[John Bolton] includes details of a number of private conversations. Among other things, Mr Trump is alleged to have been unaware that the UK was a nuclear power or that Finland was a country.

Cerv fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jun 18, 2020

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 00:24

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

anyone got a link to the report as a PDF? don't fancy reading a thousand screenshots via twitter

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 21:12

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

sebzilla posted:

https://www.scribd.com/document/466134414/Final-Labour-Together-Report

cheers

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 21:22

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

I'm pretty sure Apple & Google are only giving state health services the API keys for their bluetooth contact logging thing.
so what's Wales' plane? has he nicked the German DoH's keys? big tech can just revoke those and issue new ones to the government there

# ¿ Jun 18, 2020 22:59

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

WhatEvil posted:

Completely unrelated, but has anybody looked into whether it's possible to do an entryism on the Lib Dems to vote for Layla Moran? Or do they have join-date restrictions on voting?

you have until 9th July to join and be able to take part. subs vary from �12 /year, but go as low as �6 /year if you're on benefits or under 26, or �1 /year for students.
legally you must be on the electoral roll, so don't sign up as Mickey Mouse.
Party rules forbid members of any other party signing up, as you'd expect.

voting will take place from 30th July to 26th August.
OMOV using ranked ballots, but with only two candidates that's a moot point.
there's about 120k existing members, so you could swing it by signing up fewer people that have died from the covid

# ¿ Jun 23, 2020 18:30

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

sebzilla posted:

RLB getting dragged on Twitter for retweeting that MAxine Peake article in the INdependent, because of one line about US Police learning their neck-kneeling shenanigans from Israeli secret services.

This is all so loving tiring.

before or after the Indie issued the correction to the article?

randomly blaming Israel for all the ills of the world ain't a good look. wish that people would learn to not touch that with a barge pole.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2020 13:06

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

ronya posted:

A challenger for the Labour leadership would need 20% of MPs to support a bid - since there are 202 Labour MPs and 10 Labour MEPs, this translates to 43 sponsors. It is likely that a leadership challenger from the left could find sufficient sponsors - the SCG is already 35 MPs - but there would need to be a sharper trigger for a challenge and a figure to rally around. Burgon is too contentious.

surely the 10 former MEPs don't count since 31/01/20 ?
admittedly that only lowers the cutoff to 41

# ¿ Jun 25, 2020 19:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 09:43

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Apraxin posted:

Don't have the original but: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/25/long-baileys-sacking-sparks-renewed-focus-on-us-and-israeli-police-links

'In a wide-ranging interview with the Independent, Peake made the claim � which she later retracted � that the brutal US police tactics that left George Floyd unable to breathe in Minnesota, sparking global Black Lives Matter protests, were a direct result of Israeli training.

�Systemic racism is a global issue,� Peake told the Independent. �The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd�s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.�The Independent originally contextualised Peake�s comments with a denial from an Israeli police spokesperson that they would recommend kneeling on a suspect�s neck, before referencing a 2016 blog post by Amnesty International USA on how US police forces are regularly trained by Israeli officials.

Several hours later the interview was updated to include a stronger denial from an Israeli police spokesperson insisting �there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway�. An editor�s note was also attached, distancing the Independent from Peake�s claim: �This article has been amended to further clarify that the allegation that US police were taught tactics of �neck kneeling� by Israeli secret services is unfounded.�'

about that Amnesty International reference, they themselves have come out saying they didn't say what was originally claimed
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/amnesty-international-we-never-reported-neck-kneeling-taught-israelis-us

quote:

Amnesty International: We never reported that �neck kneeling� is taught by Israelis to US
The organisation has clarified that its report does not constitute evidence to support the allegations at the centre of the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey

Amnesty International has clarified that it has never reported that �neck kneeling� is a technique taught by the Israeli secret services, after a 2016 report from the organisation was used in support of actor Maxine Peake�s allegation that Israeli secret services taught US police the technique that was used in the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota.

The shadow education secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, was today sacked from Keir Starmer�s shadow cabinet for sharing an Independent interview with Peake containing the above claim. The Labour leader has described the allegation as an �anti-Semitic conspiracy theory�.

The former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has said in Long-Bailey�s defence that �criticism of the practices of the Israeli state is not anti-Semitic", and that she therefore should not have been sacked for sharing an interview containing these criticisms. Meanwhile, those defending the former party leadership candidate online have been widely sharing a 2016 report from Amnesty International which states that thousands of US police officers have received training from the Israeli military and secret services; indeed, it is not disputed the the Israel Defense Forces have shared training with US police departments.

Those who find this allegation anti-Semitic do not dispute that international police forces share training in a manner of deep concern to international human rights watchdogs. What they do object to is the singling out of Israel in this allegation, when there is nothing to suggest that Israel played any greater part in Floyd�s death than the many other countries that share training with the US, and which also use aggressive restraining techniques. Why is the tragic killing of a black man at the hands of the police, in a country with a long history of racial discrimination and excessive force in policing, now being blamed on the world�s only Jewish-majority state, they ask?

Amnesty International has now issued a clarification that its report does not show any evidence of �neck kneeling� as a technique taught by the Israeli secret services, nor evidence that the Minnesota police force received training from the Israeli secret services.

In a statement to the New Statesman, the organisation said: �For years, we�ve documented appalling crimes under international law and human rights violations meted out to Palestinians by members of the Israeli security forces, though the precise nature of the training offered to US police forces by Israeli officials is not something we�ve documented.

�Allegations that US police were taught tactics of �neck kneeling� by Israeli secret services is not something we�ve ever reported and the article in question has rightly been amended to acknowledge that.

�The US police themselves have a longstanding record of using excessive force against members of the public - including Black Lives Matter protesters, something we reported on earlier this week.�

Peake herself has now retracted her earlier comments, saying in a statement: �I was inaccurate in my assumption of American police training and its sources. I find racism and antisemitism abhorrent and I in no way wished, nor intended, to add fodder to any views of the contrary.�

but it seems to me that arguing the rights or wrongs of Peake's original assertion will get nobody anywhere in undoing what's done.
RLB's sin wasn't the inaccuracy of the statement she endorsed. it's that she mentioned anything about Israel at all outside off her own back and outside of what the party leadership collectively have decided. Labour are walking a tightrope to avoid being dragged into this mire again, and part of the uneasy truce in the party is to STFU a bit about anything I/P. if you can't be trusted not to step on every rake laying around you're going to be perceived as a bit of a liability in the shadow cabinet.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2020 22:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT Summer 2020 - Two Pints of Saline and Abacavir for Drip

«‹›3 »