The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] Winning The Argument Looks A Lot Like Losing

19495969798100»

Posts

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    That he's going to put a customs checkpoint on?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • NorgothNorgoth cardiffRegistered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    Christ maybe at the end of the next 5 years Britain will be surrounded by unfinished bridges. Johnson will pull the lever, his master plan complete, as the bridges fold into legs and the UK phsycially walks further away from the EU like the spider from Wild Wild West.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Twitter random but the clip is from the Today programme this morning. The MP is Claudia Webbe, a Corbyn loyalist given a nice safe seat, and the question was asking her why she said the Labour manifesto was popular given Labour lost horribly. You could easily give an answer such as well it maybe had too much in it, the manifesto was popular but the leadership wasn't, etc, but if you don't want to besmirch the name of Corbyn by criticising him or his manifesto you have to do something else. Have a listen if you want to know whether Labour are getting their shit together.


    Wow.

    This actually cut through the thick haze of my steadfast refusal to care and brought up some genuine despair. That was the interview equivalent of watching a headless chicken run around vomiting blood and bile from its neck stump. It's perfectly possible for Labour to be in a very different place six months from now I suppose but it's extremely difficult to see it in the here and now.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    A real, physical bridge?

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Central OhioRegistered User regular
    GONG-00 wrote: »
    The Johnson Withdrawal an acceptable British substitute?

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see this in a Marina Hyde post

    l7ygmd1dd4p1.jpeg
    3b2y43dozpk3.jpeg
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    A real, physical bridge?

    I just googled it and it is in fact feasible. Perhaps even a good idea to re-invigorate the Northern economy by providing building jobs.

    But it'd be a pointless project because it'd go to the middle of nowhere in Scotland, leaving motorists with a very long drive to anywhere, so they'd probably still take the ferry.

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    the reason is quite straightforward; its meant to be a more obvious commitment to "preserving the union" than the fucking up of it that the current ni only customs arrangement

    its pure sop to base to show intention and nothing more

    3fpohw4n01yj.png
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Central OhioRegistered User regular
    NI is maybe looking at a good reinvigorating anyway if they’re staying in the customs union

    l7ygmd1dd4p1.jpeg
    3b2y43dozpk3.jpeg
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    eEK! wrote: »
    Its not just Iraq he consistently lost votes after the 97 election, as his charm clashed with reality. Iraq was just the final straw that turned the centrists against him.

    You wouldn't know it from the current discourse, but it was actually Tom Watson that forced Blair out, as leftists had no influence in Labour (post John Smith) until Ed Miliband made it more democratic in response to press complaints of improper union influence.

    Yeah, I wouldn't blame the left for forcing Blair out. The problem wasn't Blair leaving, it was the change in the leadership selection process and them letting Corbyn in to "be fair". (Whoever decided to do that I'm sure feels great about themselves these days.)

    In my defence, it seemed like a good idea at the time! (I know you were thinking more about the party rules than the individual voters, just realising I need to add another to my voting[failures] list)
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    A real, physical bridge?

    I just googled it and it is in fact feasible. Perhaps even a good idea to re-invigorate the Northern economy by providing building jobs.

    But it'd be a pointless project because it'd go to the middle of nowhere in Scotland, leaving motorists with a very long drive to anywhere, so they'd probably still take the ferry.

    I remember we here speaking about this when Johnson brought it up before, maybe during the leadership campaign? It’s feasible, but ruinously expensive. One end has nothing especially interesting nearby. And IIRC it goes over an underwater trench filled with unexploded WW2 ordnance.

    So I assume we’ll start building it next week.

  • This content has been removed.

  • BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    Cause we are in the dumbest timeline: odds of bridge to NI being built and Scotland leaving?

    Bridge to NI: Low
    Scotland leaving: High

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    A real, physical bridge?

    I just googled it and it is in fact feasible. Perhaps even a good idea to re-invigorate the Northern economy by providing building jobs.

    But it'd be a pointless project because it'd go to the middle of nowhere in Scotland, leaving motorists with a very long drive to anywhere, so they'd probably still take the ferry.

    It could be beneficial for freight rail. Things that make for awkward sizes or timeframes for a ship that isn't solely going to Ireland in the first place. And/or free up dockspace for things that are definitely more seaworthy. Not nearly worth the cost, but still. More than just people move back and forth.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    Government's £1,000 fee to register children as British citizens ruled 'unlawful'
    A government decision to charge £1,012 to register children as UK citizens was "unlawful", the High Court has ruled.

    The fee applies to children born outside the UK, and those born in the UK before their parents were granted citizenship or settled status.

    Delivering the ruling judge Mr Justice Jay said the Home Office "failed to have regard to the best interests" of children affected.

    The department said it will consider the ruling's implications "carefully."
    Question; can they appeal to the EU courts? I'm just asking because that's the dumbest thing I can think of, so I assume it's a possibility.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    Pratchett always had his tongue in his cheek. It didn't mean he wasn't also right.
    And even though it was about a revolution, it still applies. This is our chance to make things better and stop all those things we say we hate! Oh, but the other guy is promising that I personally will have to pay less money, so you know...

    I'm not saying it's about a revolution, I'm saying it's about revolutionaries. The quote sounds like he's taking the piss out of revolutionaries for finding the public inadequate to their desires for just not being revolutionary enough.

    I don’t know... I’m reminded of Egypt, where liberal students protested and overthrew a horrible authoritarian government and instituted democracy... Only to then realize they didn’t actually have any sort of electoral constituency. Leading to the country just bouncing between competing authoritarian governments until the old assholes that got overthrown in the first place just got voted back in.

    And this is hardly a uniquely an Egyptian outcome. It seems like populist revolutions have 3 outcomes with about equal probabilities:

    1. A quasi- democratic interim government forms that eventually transitions into stable democracy.
    2. A quasi- democratic interim government forms that is hijacked by the most radical or militant members of the revolution and an authoritarian government forms that is just as bad as the old one.
    3. A quasi-democratic interim government forms, chaos ensues for a period, with government bouncing back between factions or individual personality cults, and eventually everyone just decides government is hard and puts the old guys back in charge.

    Jealous Deva on
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    Pratchett always had his tongue in his cheek. It didn't mean he wasn't also right.
    And even though it was about a revolution, it still applies. This is our chance to make things better and stop all those things we say we hate! Oh, but the other guy is promising that I personally will have to pay less money, so you know...

    I'm not saying it's about a revolution, I'm saying it's about revolutionaries. The quote sounds like he's taking the piss out of revolutionaries for finding the public inadequate to their desires for just not being revolutionary enough.

    I don’t know... I’m reminded of Egypt, where liberal students protested and overthrew a horrible authoritarian government and instituted democracy... Only to then realize they didn’t actually have any sort of electoral constituency. Leading to the country just bouncing between competing authoritarian governments until the old assholes that got overthrown in the first place just got voted back in.

    And this is hardly a uniquely an Egyptian outcome. It seems like populist revolutions have 3 outcomes with about equal probabilities:

    1. A quasi- democratic interim government forms that eventually transitions into stable democracy.
    2. A quasi- democratic interim government forms that is hijacked by the most radical or militant members of the revolution and an authoritarian government forms that is just as bad as the old one.
    3. A quasi-democratic interim government forms, chaos ensues for a period, with government bouncing back between factions or individual personality cults, and eventually everyone just decides government is hard and puts the old guys back in charge.

    I submit that these three outcomes are not equally probable. We'd all like to think so, but IMO (1) is a lot less likely than the other two.

    Commander Zoom on
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    The thing revolutionaries always forget is just because you tear a system down it doesn't necessarily follow that you're the one who gets to rebuild it. Tearing down a system just creates a power vacuum with no rules. When the game has no rules the most vicious bastard tends to win.

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    Hey remember when the Lib Dems refused to install Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minster to pass legislation for a second referendum and instead decided to have an election instead.

    Good times, good times.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    Yup, all Corbyn had to do countenance anyone but himself as the caretaker Prime Minster, but that was a bridge too far, and that decision lead directly to the very election that brought his chance at ever being prime minister to an end.

    What a wheeze, eh?


    Now Playing:
    Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
    Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age [Switch] - Sit down and watch our game play itself
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Hey remember when the Lib Dems refused to install Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minster to pass legislation for a second referendum and instead decided to have an election instead.

    Good times, good times.

    Hey remember when the Lib Dems said "We will totally install a temporary PM from Labour so long as it's not Corbyn because he's completely toxic and can't command the support of enough MPs"? And then all the polling in the election and the results of the election demonstrated that Corbyn was completely toxic and couldn't command the support of the majority of people, even when the alternative was Boris Johnson?

    Good times, good times.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Hey remember when the Lib Dems refused to install Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minster to pass legislation for a second referendum and instead decided to have an election instead.

    Good times, good times.

    Hey remember when the Lib Dems said "We will totally install a temporary PM from Labour so long as it's not Corbyn because he's completely toxic and can't command the support of enough MPs"? And then all the polling in the election and the results of the election demonstrated that Corbyn was completely toxic and couldn't command the support of the majority of people, even when the alternative was Boris Johnson?

    Good times, good times.

    Why do the Lib Dems get a say in who leads Labour, when the Labour membership has made it very clear who they want? If they wanted to just stop Brexit they could have installed Corbyn and pulled the rug out afterwards.

  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Bogart wrote: »
    Johnson is still talking about a bridge between NI and the mainland, the mad twat.

    The Johnson bridge on the Mull of Kintyre?

    *waits for the inevitable “oo-er”*

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • eEK!eEK! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Hey remember when the Lib Dems refused to install Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minster to pass legislation for a second referendum and instead decided to have an election instead.

    Good times, good times.

    Hey remember when the Lib Dems said "We will totally install a temporary PM from Labour so long as it's not Corbyn because he's completely toxic and can't command the support of enough MPs"? And then all the polling in the election and the results of the election demonstrated that Corbyn was completely toxic and couldn't command the support of the majority of people, even when the alternative was Boris Johnson?

    Good times, good times.

    Yes, just like when they said anyone but Gordon Brown....

  • BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Why do the Lib Dems get a say in who leads Labour, when the Labour membership has made it very clear who they want?

    Nobody argued that they should. The Government of National Unity or whatever snappy name they were going to give it wasn't Labour.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Hey remember when the Lib Dems refused to install Jeremy Corbyn as caretaker Prime Minster to pass legislation for a second referendum and instead decided to have an election instead.

    Good times, good times.

    Hey remember when the Lib Dems said "We will totally install a temporary PM from Labour so long as it's not Corbyn because he's completely toxic and can't command the support of enough MPs"? And then all the polling in the election and the results of the election demonstrated that Corbyn was completely toxic and couldn't command the support of the majority of people, even when the alternative was Boris Johnson?

    Good times, good times.

    Why do the Lib Dems get a say in who leads Labour, when the Labour membership has made it very clear who they want? If they wanted to just stop Brexit they could have installed Corbyn and pulled the rug out afterwards.

    Why do Labour get a say in who runs the alliance but the Lib Dems don't?

    Especially when they were, you know, entirely correct about Corbyn.

    shryke on
  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Labour membership "making it very clear who they want" is a bit of a dubious statement if i recall correctly

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Yup, all Corbyn had to do countenance anyone but himself as the caretaker Prime Minster, but that was a bridge too far, and that decision lead directly to the very election that brought his chance at ever being prime minister to an end.

    What a wheeze, eh?


    Jo Swinson fancied herself as PM

    Her whole strategy was just a complete disaster, really. What an awful miscalculation

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Yup, all Corbyn had to do countenance anyone but himself as the caretaker Prime Minster, but that was a bridge too far, and that decision lead directly to the very election that brought his chance at ever being prime minister to an end.

    What a wheeze, eh?


    Jo Swinson fancied herself as PM

    Her whole strategy was just a complete disaster, really. What an awful miscalculation

    Actually she didn't. She put forward several names that are not Swinson.

    Corbyn was the one who fancied himself PM. He said "It's me or nobody". And the public agreed it wasn't him.

  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Yup, all Corbyn had to do countenance anyone but himself as the caretaker Prime Minster, but that was a bridge too far, and that decision lead directly to the very election that brought his chance at ever being prime minister to an end.

    What a wheeze, eh?


    Jo Swinson fancied herself as PM

    Her whole strategy was just a complete disaster, really. What an awful miscalculation

    Actually she didn't. She put forward several names that are not Swinson.

    Corbyn was the one who fancied himself PM. He said "It's me or nobody". And the public agreed it wasn't him.

    It’s true. Nobody consistently came ahead of Corbyn in the polls.

    fuck gendered marketing
  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    the "government of national unity" was a stupid idea and it doesn't matter who killed it

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    I think the government of national unity was useful in that it showed everyone’s priorities. Unfortunately the number one priority turned out not to be stopping Brexit.

    Forget led by donkeys, it’s donkeys all the way down.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited December 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    Yup, all Corbyn had to do countenance anyone but himself as the caretaker Prime Minster, but that was a bridge too far, and that decision lead directly to the very election that brought his chance at ever being prime minister to an end.

    What a wheeze, eh?


    Jo Swinson fancied herself as PM

    Her whole strategy was just a complete disaster, really. What an awful miscalculation

    Actually she didn't. She put forward several names that are not Swinson.

    Corbyn was the one who fancied himself PM. He said "It's me or nobody". And the public agreed it wasn't him.

    She didn't for the government of NU, no.

    She absolutely had a long term strategy of playing kingmaker and keeping Corbyn from no. 10 and making herself the foremost alternative challenger to Johnson in the GE that would follow.

    Solar on
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    .
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It is wild seeing Blair dismissed as a war criminal for presumably the Iraq war? When barely any criticism of said war is audible in the mainstream over here, the country that started said war and dragged y'all into it.

    They didn't drag him in though that was the issue, going to war was wildly unpopular because it was nothing to do with us, and he did it anyway and there are thousands of people who are dead because of it. Children that will never be born because of it. It's such a colossal fuck up that he had to go, Brown took his place, and let the 2008 recession be blamed solely on Labour, which ushered in the next FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS of Conservative rule. Any and all good Blair did will always be a footnote because it's just that big a fuck up. Even now people are like "Well he has good ideas but fuck Tony Blair".

    We really did though. Disentangling ones self with ones allies is not easy nor lightly done.

    Staying out of Iraq wasn't that hard to do, Canada managed to avoid that war, and we're just a little bit entangled with the USA. Second largest trading relationship in the world, longest international border in the world, etc.

    :so_raven:
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    The one thing that the Claudia Webb interview seemingly accidentally brings up is the distinction between popularity and credibly popularity.

    A good example of this was the 4 day work week.

    If you tell me that you're going to let me work one day fewer a week, and it'll probably make me more productive at the same time, I'll tell you, yeah, that's great. And so it's a popular policy. But if you ask me whether I think that'll happen, it'll be a sound "probably not very easily."

    It never surprises me that the policies of losing parties are popular after the fact, because when you combine them all for the full manifesto, you so obviously get fairy tales. And this isn't even to say the Tory manifesto didn't contain its share; it had plenty of porkies to go around too. But they used better concealed lies; "we'll build 40 hospitals in the next 5 years." People don't really have a sense of how many hospitals there are in the UK now, they can't tell if 40 is a reasonable or unreasonable number, and most of the electorate aren't going to go digging out which of those hospitals are already in construction and other such technicalities. But everyone can tell you that trying to get a day off work is like pulling teeth, and your boss isn't going to make it bloody easy.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Bogart. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.