Question from an ignorant american - if Lewis has the whip removed, does that mean he can be replaced with an actual Tory? Or is this a non-partisan type position or something?
Bit of both but the short answer is no. The PM and the Leader of the Opposition work to nominate a set of MPs or Lords (who are not current members) who will serve on it for the duration of this parliament, and then Parliament votes to approve this selection. The committee itself then chooses a chairman amongst itself.
Understandably, it can take quite a while for the PM and the LoO to agree to a shortlist - but there's a lot of UK Parliament stuff that works a bit like this.
Currently the is one ex-Tory, four Tories, three Labour and one SNP. Everyone is an MP except for one of the Labour ones who is a Lord.
These members will remain on the Committee for the next five years.
Wait wait wait. You mean Starmer actually agreed to let Grayling within five hundred miles of this in the first place?
That's some respect for him lost, if so. If I was anywhere in government, I'd want the computers rigged to shut down as a protective measure if Grayling entered the building.
So the support for universities has some pretty sinister conditions attached to it
Universities will be required to close courses leading to "low graduate pay", which is yet to be defined but has long been a cummingsism for "anything not STEM"
Universities will be prohibited from "subsidising niche student activism" through student unions, again "niche" and "activism" are yet to be defined
I need to do some numbers on this, because I've long found the Tories' implacable hatred of the university sector odd, given that it's a strong export industry via international students. Less so now, due to the hostile environment and brexit, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.
The student Union stuff is, I think, interesting because it seems poorly thought through. Most universities are required through their constitutional documents to support student representation and welfare. Altering those documents is not trivial and probably requires primary legislation in many cases. If, in practice, the upshot is that unis are required to withdraw funding and facilities from student unions, the chances are that they're likely to become more explicitly political and radicalised, because then they're less about running a bar and exclusively about fighting the administration on issues of access and representation
Question from an ignorant american - if Lewis has the whip removed, does that mean he can be replaced with an actual Tory? Or is this a non-partisan type position or something?
Bit of both but the short answer is no. The PM and the Leader of the Opposition work to nominate a set of MPs or Lords (who are not current members) who will serve on it for the duration of this parliament, and then Parliament votes to approve this selection. The committee itself then chooses a chairman amongst itself.
Understandably, it can take quite a while for the PM and the LoO to agree to a shortlist - but there's a lot of UK Parliament stuff that works a bit like this.
Currently the is one ex-Tory, four Tories, three Labour and one SNP. Everyone is an MP except for one of the Labour ones who is a Lord.
These members will remain on the Committee for the next five years.
Wait wait wait. You mean Starmer actually agreed to let Grayling within five hundred miles of this in the first place?
That's some respect for him lost, if so. If I was anywhere in government, I'd want the computers rigged to shut down as a protective measure if Grayling entered the building.
He doesn't really have much choice. The Tories have a majority. They ultimately will get a majority on the committee, and Parliament votes to confirm, which is majority Tory. He didn't let it happen. That's not how it works.
I doubt Starmer can veto members. It's more they get a number of seats each according to the makeup of Parliament (note the SNP MP), and put that number of names forward. I doubt there's much that can force someone to withdraw a nomination for one of their MPs.
So the support for universities has some pretty sinister conditions attached to it
Universities will be required to close courses leading to "low graduate pay", which is yet to be defined but has long been a cummingsism for "anything not STEM"
Universities will be prohibited from "subsidising niche student activism" through student unions, again "niche" and "activism" are yet to be defined
I need to do some numbers on this, because I've long found the Tories' implacable hatred of the university sector odd, given that it's a strong export industry via international students. Less so now, due to the hostile environment and brexit, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.
The student Union stuff is, I think, interesting because it seems poorly thought through. Most universities are required through their constitutional documents to support student representation and welfare. Altering those documents is not trivial and probably requires primary legislation in many cases. If, in practice, the upshot is that unis are required to withdraw funding and facilities from student unions, the chances are that they're likely to become more explicitly political and radicalised, because then they're less about running a bar and exclusively about fighting the administration on issues of access and representation
This sounds a lot like the things the right wing are trying to push through in Australia - gutting funding for any degrees that aren’t tech focused.
Anything he touches turns to disaster. He is congenitally incapable of seeing a problem without making it very considerably worse.
Someone asked John Bercow to do an interview about Grayling and he was only too happy to oblige. "Deny me a peerage, will you?", he pointedly did not add.
So the support for universities has some pretty sinister conditions attached to it
Universities will be required to close courses leading to "low graduate pay", which is yet to be defined but has long been a cummingsism for "anything not STEM"
Universities will be prohibited from "subsidising niche student activism" through student unions, again "niche" and "activism" are yet to be defined
I need to do some numbers on this, because I've long found the Tories' implacable hatred of the university sector odd, given that it's a strong export industry via international students. Less so now, due to the hostile environment and brexit, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.
The student Union stuff is, I think, interesting because it seems poorly thought through. Most universities are required through their constitutional documents to support student representation and welfare. Altering those documents is not trivial and probably requires primary legislation in many cases. If, in practice, the upshot is that unis are required to withdraw funding and facilities from student unions, the chances are that they're likely to become more explicitly political and radicalised, because then they're less about running a bar and exclusively about fighting the administration on issues of access and representation
This sounds a lot like the things the right wing are trying to push through in Australia - gutting funding for any degrees that aren’t tech focused.
the FASHINTERN seems to be working together nicely..
Anything he touches turns to disaster. He is congenitally incapable of seeing a problem without making it very considerably worse.
Someone asked John Bercow to do an interview about Grayling and he was only too happy to oblige. "Deny me a peerage, will you?", he pointedly did not add.
Motivated by spite or not, he isn't wrong.
+2
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
So the support for universities has some pretty sinister conditions attached to it
Universities will be required to close courses leading to "low graduate pay", which is yet to be defined but has long been a cummingsism for "anything not STEM"
Universities will be prohibited from "subsidising niche student activism" through student unions, again "niche" and "activism" are yet to be defined
I need to do some numbers on this, because I've long found the Tories' implacable hatred of the university sector odd, given that it's a strong export industry via international students. Less so now, due to the hostile environment and brexit, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.
The student Union stuff is, I think, interesting because it seems poorly thought through. Most universities are required through their constitutional documents to support student representation and welfare. Altering those documents is not trivial and probably requires primary legislation in many cases. If, in practice, the upshot is that unis are required to withdraw funding and facilities from student unions, the chances are that they're likely to become more explicitly political and radicalised, because then they're less about running a bar and exclusively about fighting the administration on issues of access and representation
This sounds a lot like the things the right wing are trying to push through in Australia - gutting funding for any degrees that aren’t tech focused.
the FASHINTERN seems to be working together nicely..
It’d be quite interesting if it weren’t so terrifying and stupid.
I doubt Starmer can veto members. It's more they get a number of seats each according to the makeup of Parliament (note the SNP MP), and put that number of names forward. I doubt there's much that can force someone to withdraw a nomination for one of their MPs.
He could, as I understand it - but it's one of those scorched earth options. The membership is for them both to decide on as a combined decision that seems reasonable to everyone, but this is an important committee that you don't want to play games with. And with the establishment of this commitee being the suposed requirement for the Russia report to be released, you're probably going to accept the odd idiot as long as there's also a few real Tory suggestions on there.
Anything he touches turns to disaster. He is congenitally incapable of seeing a problem without making it very considerably worse.
Someone asked John Bercow to do an interview about Grayling and he was only too happy to oblige. "Deny me a peerage, will you?", he pointedly did not add.
It's definitely worth a watch, mostly for the line "Nice chap though he is, his track record shows anything he touches turns to disaster, he is congenitally incapable of seeing a problem without making it very considerably worse."
Even if Starmer could Veto Graylings nomination, what would be the point? If all Cummings wants is to get an empty suit on there they have literally hundreds of backbench Tory MP's who are presumably willing to be a rubber stamp in exchange for some prestige. You can't veto them all and regardless of which sockpuppet gets put in there it's still going to have Cummings hand up its arse. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
It'd be a nice change of pace to have someone new who can surprise us with new and imaginative screwups.
Grayling can only perform as expected by doing something like giving 2 billion of taxpayer money for new office printers for the entire department ("Ooh, 'dot matrix', sounds advanced!").
If we can't have nice things, is it too much to ask for some originality for the bad things?
Boris Johnson urged fox hunters to break the law and keep killing animals despite the practice being banned, in an article written while he was a Conservative MP.
In the 2005 piece Mr Johnson said he "loved" hunting with dogs, in part because of the "semi-sexual relation with the horse" and the "military-style pleasure" of moving as a unit.
The future prime minister argued that the imposition of the ban was "not about cruelty" but "a Marxian attack" by the Labour government on the upper class.
"It is a brutal and pointless liquidation of a way of life. They ban it just because they can; and the people I really despair of are those idiots who say that they ‘don’t care much one way or another’," he wrote in a piece for the Spectator magazine, which he edited at the time.
"About five or six years ago I went to see Blair, and asked him why he was banning hunting. ‘Oh, I’m not one of those who would go hunting on a Saturday, nor would I go out protesting,’ he said. Is it not therefore doubly revolting that he has imposed this tyrannical measure, and voted for it himself?"
Arguing that hunters should break the law to continue the killings, Mr Johnson said it was unlikely that the ban would be properly enforced.
"I loved my day with the hunt, and hope they have the courage and organisation to keep going for ever," he said.
"They are going out with the hounds this Saturday, and if the hounds pick up a fox, so be it. How will the poor cops prove mens rea?
"And will they not have to produce a fox in evidence? I hope that the hunt holds up the ban to the ridicule it deserves, that they defy the police and the magistrates and the government, until a new government can rescue an old tradition and restore it for the sake of freedom and freedom alone."
"It is like skiing, in that you are personally tracing, at speed, the contour of the landscape, and then there is the added interest of the weird semi-sexual relation with the horse, in which you have the illusion of understanding and control. There is the military-style pleasure of wheeling and charging as one, the emulative fun of a pseudo-campaign."
In the 2005 piece Mr Johnson said he "loved" hunting with dogs, in part because of the "semi-sexual relation with the horse" and the "military-style pleasure" of moving as a unit.
So... the Prime Minister has, at best, sexual fantasies about horses. At worst... *wretches*.
I really really cannot be arsed with another round of "hey look at all this moronic drivel Johnson produced during his decades long career as a "journalist" specialising in moronic drivel for morons". Honestly, we'll be here giving his semi coherent scratchings attention they manifestly do not deserve until our sanity dribbles out our ears.
He's a brain-dead toff armed with delusions of grandeur and a thesaurus form the early 1900's. We get it.
One of the many issues I have with johnson's drivel is that it was abhorrent back then as well, yet somehow people continued to give him a platform.
I am very glad that Blair managed to shove the fox hunting ban down the tories throats when he could. Moreso that every attempt to repeal the ban gets met with a wave of public revulsion. I'd also quite like to see grouse shooting banned as an environmentally harmful bloodsport for the well to do, but with tories in power that's not happening.
I thought we'd switched to reporting on excess deaths as far as Coronavirus numbers go, but I guess not?
Seems to be an international effort to double down on the "lots of people who died whilst having had Covid died to something else, it's just coincidence and the numbers are really lower!", but we're signing up for that too.
There's not going to be any more reports on deaths until they can fix the current bug (of Public Health England using a positive test and a death to record a Covid death).
Took me forever to realise he meant these as bad things
(Martin Daubrey is a brexit party politician which is why I’m not doing him the favor of embedding. Well, that and the daily mail link)
I was reading along to the pic before going back and reading your context text and realised I was nodding along as like "yes, good, and..." but because it was posted in this thread, knew it must have meant to be an attack somehow... I guess I'm disappointed I wasn't surprised?
[Edit]Yeah! Commander Zoom has the right of it![/Edit]
LaOs on
0
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
The public are morons fuck the public mood you gammon wanker
The Shamima Begum thing is so unbelievably dumb. I'm not sure when it comes down to it there are that many people with love and forgiveness in their hearts for her but isn't really the point. The point is she's, by any intelligent reading of international or British law, a British citizen. This isn't the 1700s and transportation is no longer a thing, you can't just send your criminals elsewhere and you can't arbitrarily deprive them of a state.
It's also blindingly obvious for anyone who isn't a moron why it's a bad thing to allow the Home Secretary to be able to invent law and devise cruel and unusual punishments on the hoof, regardless of how much of a dick the person they're doing it to is. Where does that end? Is it just people of colour who get the drawbridge pulled up on them if they commit a crime overseas? What crimes qualify for this punishment? What if you just have a funny foreign name like me? If I am charged with a crime will I be sent to the country my grandfather was born in? When are you "British" enough to deserve a fair trial in the UK? How many generations does it take to get the stink of the foreigner off you?
I wouldn't really have lost sleep if Begum had got herself killed in the desert just like I don't lose sleep when the police end up shooting someone committing a spree stabbing, frankly, they made their choices. I am however getting frustrated about continually arising need to remind certain political stripes that we settled the matter of whether laws and processes apply to people wot we don't like a very long time ago.
+25
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Those are my thoughts on the subject too casual.
And it is really sad how much the concept of the rule of law has been degraded in the past few decades.
There was a headline a few days ago along the lines of "EU red tape promises to hold up goods export from post-brexit Britain" and I really want to know exactly who found this to be a shocking surprise and then never, ever meet them.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i think in this case it is prompted by amazon having formally made an announcement: in principle it was hypothetically possible that they could have volunteered to figure out a way round the paperwork requirements themselves... so this is just them saying "actually no it's going to work the way you imagine and it's going to be shit". i was not, however, aware that the swiss border suffers similarly from an amazon pov - i had assumed it had been around long enough fudge would have been worked out, but apparently not.
Posts
Wait wait wait. You mean Starmer actually agreed to let Grayling within five hundred miles of this in the first place?
That's some respect for him lost, if so. If I was anywhere in government, I'd want the computers rigged to shut down as a protective measure if Grayling entered the building.
Universities will be required to close courses leading to "low graduate pay", which is yet to be defined but has long been a cummingsism for "anything not STEM"
Universities will be prohibited from "subsidising niche student activism" through student unions, again "niche" and "activism" are yet to be defined
I need to do some numbers on this, because I've long found the Tories' implacable hatred of the university sector odd, given that it's a strong export industry via international students. Less so now, due to the hostile environment and brexit, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.
The student Union stuff is, I think, interesting because it seems poorly thought through. Most universities are required through their constitutional documents to support student representation and welfare. Altering those documents is not trivial and probably requires primary legislation in many cases. If, in practice, the upshot is that unis are required to withdraw funding and facilities from student unions, the chances are that they're likely to become more explicitly political and radicalised, because then they're less about running a bar and exclusively about fighting the administration on issues of access and representation
He doesn't really have much choice. The Tories have a majority. They ultimately will get a majority on the committee, and Parliament votes to confirm, which is majority Tory. He didn't let it happen. That's not how it works.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This sounds a lot like the things the right wing are trying to push through in Australia - gutting funding for any degrees that aren’t tech focused.
Someone asked John Bercow to do an interview about Grayling and he was only too happy to oblige. "Deny me a peerage, will you?", he pointedly did not add.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
the FASHINTERN seems to be working together nicely..
Motivated by spite or not, he isn't wrong.
It’d be quite interesting if it weren’t so terrifying and stupid.
He could, as I understand it - but it's one of those scorched earth options. The membership is for them both to decide on as a combined decision that seems reasonable to everyone, but this is an important committee that you don't want to play games with. And with the establishment of this commitee being the suposed requirement for the Russia report to be released, you're probably going to accept the odd idiot as long as there's also a few real Tory suggestions on there.
It's definitely worth a watch, mostly for the line "Nice chap though he is, his track record shows anything he touches turns to disaster, he is congenitally incapable of seeing a problem without making it very considerably worse."
Grayling can only perform as expected by doing something like giving 2 billion of taxpayer money for new office printers for the entire department ("Ooh, 'dot matrix', sounds advanced!").
If we can't have nice things, is it too much to ask for some originality for the bad things?
Bloody hell, history really is a circle isn't it?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-fox-hunting-sexual-illegal-ban-a9624846.html
So... the Prime Minister has, at best, sexual fantasies about horses. At worst... *wretches*.
Nope. Nopenopenope. I'm out. *runs away*
People change!
Steam | XBL
He's a brain-dead toff armed with delusions of grandeur and a thesaurus form the early 1900's. We get it.
I am very glad that Blair managed to shove the fox hunting ban down the tories throats when he could. Moreso that every attempt to repeal the ban gets met with a wave of public revulsion. I'd also quite like to see grouse shooting banned as an environmentally harmful bloodsport for the well to do, but with tories in power that's not happening.
Seems to be an international effort to double down on the "lots of people who died whilst having had Covid died to something else, it's just coincidence and the numbers are really lower!", but we're signing up for that too.
There's not going to be any more reports on deaths until they can fix the current bug (of Public Health England using a positive test and a death to record a Covid death).
(Martin Daubrey is a brexit party politician which is why I’m not doing him the favor of embedding. Well, that and the daily mail link)
*weeping, wailing, pearl-clutching over list of ... inoffensive or actually rather laudable achievements and/or goals?*
"THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!"
("Yes, and?")
I was reading along to the pic before going back and reading your context text and realised I was nodding along as like "yes, good, and..." but because it was posted in this thread, knew it must have meant to be an attack somehow... I guess I'm disappointed I wasn't surprised?
[Edit]Yeah! Commander Zoom has the right of it![/Edit]
Did you know Starmer has destroyed the Labour party and it's actually his fault that Corbyn lost the GE?
It's also blindingly obvious for anyone who isn't a moron why it's a bad thing to allow the Home Secretary to be able to invent law and devise cruel and unusual punishments on the hoof, regardless of how much of a dick the person they're doing it to is. Where does that end? Is it just people of colour who get the drawbridge pulled up on them if they commit a crime overseas? What crimes qualify for this punishment? What if you just have a funny foreign name like me? If I am charged with a crime will I be sent to the country my grandfather was born in? When are you "British" enough to deserve a fair trial in the UK? How many generations does it take to get the stink of the foreigner off you?
I wouldn't really have lost sleep if Begum had got herself killed in the desert just like I don't lose sleep when the police end up shooting someone committing a spree stabbing, frankly, they made their choices. I am however getting frustrated about continually arising need to remind certain political stripes that we settled the matter of whether laws and processes apply to people wot we don't like a very long time ago.
And it is really sad how much the concept of the rule of law has been degraded in the past few decades.
You mean
Grooming and child abuse victim
BBC news is well ... BBC news
Scottish paper. Scottish nationalists are, predictably, beside themselves with glee.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I had not actually been following this but this is extremely bad news for a huge number of businesses here...
for more details (and why this is not really a surprise) see
Kind of his speciality!
Steam | XBL
Well fucking duh. Did anyone not see that coming?