Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] - This Place Is Not A Place Of Honour

15681011113

Posts

  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Oh hey, Zahawi's been sacked.
    Investigations aren't supposed to find extremely clear evidence and come to obvious conclusions quickly, what's going on?
    Yeah but isn't it politician "sacked" where nothing changes he just loses a title?

  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    Oh hey, Zahawi's been sacked.
    Investigations aren't supposed to find extremely clear evidence and come to obvious conclusions quickly, what's going on?
    Yeah but isn't it politician "sacked" where nothing changes he just loses a title?

    He's still an MP, still has the Tory whip, etc, and with his wealth any reduction in salary (I assume party chair gets more than common or garden MP?) is utterly inconsequential, so yeah, pretty much.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

    Hope for her sake she hasn't just Gordon Brown'd herself...

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Basket of deplorables

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

    Hope for her sake she hasn't just Gordon Brown'd herself...

    I feel like brown's problem was trying to distance himself from/apologise for it when it was self evidently true

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

    Hope for her sake she hasn't just Gordon Brown'd herself...

    I feel like brown's problem was trying to distance himself from/apologise for it when it was self evidently true

    I feel like his problem was that a lot of England agreed with her views about Johnny Foreigner from Eastern Europe. Hopefully Scotland is less TERF-ey.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Calling people out on their -isms is the real -ism.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Calling people out on their -isms is the real -ism.

    Its what conservatives have always tried to pull "you're the real racist for saying I'm a racist."

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Calling people out on their -isms is the real -ism.

    Its what conservatives have always tried to pull "you're the real racist for saying I'm a racist."

    How dare you make them feel shame and mild discomfort and/or make them look bad in front of others who don't share their opinions!

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Calling people out on their -isms is the real -ism.

    It's political correctness gone mad.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Calling people out on their -isms is the real -ism.

    Its what conservatives have always tried to pull "you're the real racist for saying I'm a racist."

    How dare you make them feel shame and mild discomfort and/or make them look bad in front of others who don't share their opinions!

    They always ask other people if they are "triggered" all the while they are the most easily offended children.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    Hopefully Sturgeon is clever enough for a Scottish-flavored "hit dog will holler" response to the manufactured outrage.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    A skelped dug'll greet?

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

    Hope for her sake she hasn't just Gordon Brown'd herself...

    I feel like brown's problem was trying to distance himself from/apologise for it when it was self evidently true

    I feel like his problem was that a lot of England agreed with her views about Johnny Foreigner from Eastern Europe. Hopefully Scotland is less TERF-ey.

    I'd guess they are. Passed this gender law after all, and it had been in the works for a while. They might get TERFy, but they don't seem to be there at the moment. Good job on the Tories for making it a point of Scottish nationalistic pride to support the Scotland gender bill.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Oor Nic calling it like it is


    The Scotsman @TheScotsman 5h
    Nicola Sturgeon doubles down on previous comments, saying it is “obviously the case” that some critics of her gender reforms are bigots, via @alistairkgrant
    trib.al/pARr3Dx

    Hope for her sake she hasn't just Gordon Brown'd herself...

    I feel like brown's problem was trying to distance himself from/apologise for it when it was self evidently true

    Browns problem was that while that womans views were bigoted, they were also pretty common, so anyone who shared her views or any even vaguely adjacent immediately felt like they were being attacked and went on the defensive. Most people, even bigots and racists, believe in their own minds that they are fair and reasonable people so anyone telling them they're not is going to be on the receiving end of the outrage they experience when that comfortable assumption is challenged.

    I'd put my parents in the category of people who aren't TERFs but have still internalised some "concerns" about things like allowing 16 year olds to choose their gender or putting transwomen convicted of rape in womens prisons. They're exactly the kind of people who could with a bit of reasoning be brought around but if you just call them bigots they will knee jerk into defensive posture and double down. If you're going to throw the "B-word" around in politics you need to be damn sure you have a solid super majority who agree with you or as we've seen it can blow up rather spectacularly and push fence sitters to the other side.

  • Options
    Redcoat-13Redcoat-13 Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    This always comes to mind whenever Gordon Brown is mentioned, especially with regards some of the vitriol he received (quite a long clip)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc

    Redcoat-13 on
    PSN Fleety2009
  • Options
    Indie WinterIndie Winter die Krähe Rudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered User regular
    edited February 2023
    this is apropos of basically nothing but a discussion emerged in a group I am part of for the Fallen London browser games about who, technically, "owns" the Thames; and specifically, who owned it during Victorian times.

    from the Port of London's FAQ:
    The Crown transferred the majority of the riverbed and foreshore of the tidal River Thames to the Port of London Authority’s predecessor in 1857. No plan exists of the riverbed and foreshore concerned and the Port of London Authority has to rely on the Crown’s records. The Port of London Authority’s title, therefore, is subject to any third party establishing title deriving from the Crown prior to the 1857 transfer.

    so this is some british legal (and regal) minutia here - the official divergence in timelines between the real history and the game's history (at least as far as the UK is concerned) is 1861, after the "transfer". But does "transfer" mean the Crown couldn't then withdraw the rights afterwards? is continuing approval for the transferred rights required and the Crown could, and possibly still can, withdraw them at any time?

    Indie Winter on
    wY6K6Jb.gif
  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    I don't believe that the Crown Estate can withdraw the transfer

  • Options
    Indie WinterIndie Winter die Krähe Rudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered User regular
    interesting; then I guess the question becomes who owns the actual waters

    wY6K6Jb.gif
  • Options
    [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    edited February 2023
    interesting; then I guess the question becomes who owns the actual waters

    Well, Britannia rules the waves.

    Sub-surface it's a free-for-all.

    [Expletive deleted] on
    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Anarchy in the UK...

    ...'s rivers

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Crap. We're in for another round of death by pun?

    Fuck.

    Welp, can't be helped I guess. Thames the breaks.

  • Options
    evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Crap. We're in for another round of death by pun?

    Fuck.

    Welp, can't be helped I guess. Thames the breaks.

    Relax, fella, just go with the flow!

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    this is apropos of basically nothing but a discussion emerged in a group I am part of for the Fallen London browser games about who, technically, "owns" the Thames; and specifically, who owned it during Victorian times.

    from the Port of London's FAQ:
    The Crown transferred the majority of the riverbed and foreshore of the tidal River Thames to the Port of London Authority’s predecessor in 1857. No plan exists of the riverbed and foreshore concerned and the Port of London Authority has to rely on the Crown’s records. The Port of London Authority’s title, therefore, is subject to any third party establishing title deriving from the Crown prior to the 1857 transfer.

    so this is some british legal (and regal) minutia here - the official divergence in timelines between the real history and the game's history (at least as far as the UK is concerned) is 1861, after the "transfer". But does "transfer" mean the Crown couldn't then withdraw the rights afterwards? is continuing approval for the transferred rights required and the Crown could, and possibly still can, withdraw them at any time?

    Legally the crown cannot withdraw the rights unless the grant explicitly says they can*. The crown is a corporation almost like any other. They receive special rights but none of those allow the taking of property since, I believe, the end of the English Civil War. This… I don’t think.. is enshrined in legislative law but it likely is as a matter of de facto law. Taking is a matter of governance and so when the crown lost the ability to govern without the consent of parliament and when parliament further secured its power, whether explicitly or implicitly the crown lost its ability to unilaterally take.

    But parliament(and potentially other government agencies if given said power by parliament) can legally do it and parliament is probably not truly bound to pay for it either(but usually does). But whether or not parliament can do this functionally a matter of power and in your hypothetical world split this applies to the crown as well. So the answer has a lot more to do with how much power parliament and the crown has than any particular legal principle. Or how much power any particular group of people who wanted to prevent or enact said event.

    *as an example. I could sell you a piece of property in the US on the condition you didn’t build anything on it or develop it. And if you then built a house on that property I could sue you and get the land back. In general these covenants are fairly encompassing in what they allow to be held back and the conditions of use. Though it’s rare to actually find property with particularly strict covenants. I’ve only studied US real estate law but it’s based on UK real estate common law so this should be a pretty close approximation and it’s unlikely anything has changed so significantly as to disallow indefinite leases.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    Indie WinterIndie Winter die Krähe Rudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered User regular
    Not to get too into the weeds of the alternative, fictitious game world, but the legal principle is absolutely and without question more pertinent there than mere earthly sovereign power - be it based in crown or parliament

    wY6K6Jb.gif
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Not to get too into the weeds of the alternative, fictitious game world, but the legal principle is absolutely and without question more pertinent there than mere earthly sovereign power - be it based in crown or parliament

    Ok. Then the legal principle is “no, unless the grant says they can”.

    But I am having a lot of difficulty distinguishing the difference between the “legal principle” and “earthly sovereign power”. The legal principle of eminent domain is the relevant principle and it’s based entirely on “earthly sovereign power”.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    Indie WinterIndie Winter die Krähe Rudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered User regular
    in the game there are unearthly powers, far more sovereign, and they take contract stipulations very seriously

    wY6K6Jb.gif
  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Those famously left wing bond market traders

  • Options
    Bad-BeatBad-Beat Registered User regular
    "Left-wing economic establishment" other than that being an oxymoron, it's also a huge dog whistle akin to "North London elites".

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Her nemesis: Math

  • Options
    evilthecatevilthecat Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Her nemesis: Math

    Wasn't the problem her complete misunderstanding of basic economic principles?
    IIRC, she wanted to cut taxes and increase spending at a time when the country wasn't doing particularly well to which most economy experts said ..."what?"

    In other news, Jeremy Corbyn is on the "don't send weapons to UA, send diplomats".

    tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Her nemesis: Math

    Wasn't the problem her complete misunderstanding of basic economic principles?
    IIRC, she wanted to cut taxes and increase spending at a time when the country wasn't doing particularly well to which most economy experts said ..."what?"

    Yes

    Huge tax cut, commitment to maintain spending

    Her and Kwarteng are both IEA* nutbags with an ideological conviction that tax cuts necessarily lead to economic growth, so in their minds it was simply self evident that the economy would grow and tax receipts increase, and didn't require any further explanation or evidence

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs

  • Options
    AlphaRomeroAlphaRomero Registered User regular
    Corbyn should not have been PM, he has socially good ideas and it would've been nice to have him in a position of power but he's too much of a peacenik for the world he lives in. No diplomat is good enough to talk Putin down.

  • Options
    ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    evilthecat wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Her nemesis: Math

    Wasn't the problem her complete misunderstanding of basic economic principles?
    IIRC, she wanted to cut taxes and increase spending at a time when the country wasn't doing particularly well to which most economy experts said ..."what?"

    In other news, Jeremy Corbyn is on the "don't send weapons to UA, send diplomats".

    ugh

    Thank you, Jeremy Corbyn, for being the one human on earth who can make me think "well it's a good thing Boris fucking Johnson was in charge"

    fuck gendered marketing
  • Options
    Redcoat-13Redcoat-13 Registered User regular
    edited February 2023
    Bad-Beat wrote: »

    To repeat what Stewart Lee said about Clarkson; she’s either an idiot who believes all the badly researched lying offensive shit that she says or she’s a genius for accurately working out the best way to annoy me.

    Redcoat-13 on
    PSN Fleety2009
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Just give Putin everything he wants, and surely he will be reasonable and stop with Ukraine.
    (... he didn't? oh dear.)

  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Just give Putin everything he wants, and surely he will be reasonable and stop with Ukraine.
    (... he didn't? oh dear.)

    Was Chaimberlain unavailable?

  • Options
    fedaykin666fedaykin666 Registered User regular
    I would put Corbyn maybe as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Advocates strongly for workers' rights. Would sort out a lot of people on zero hour contracts or BS minimum wage struggling around the poverty line. Would be very passionate about it, almost certainly improve life for millions, and keeps him out of trouble on foreign policy.

Sign In or Register to comment.