- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3161 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 86341
This man is going to become Prime Minister tomorrow and it's going to be fucking
|>>|| No. 86342
I don't think he'll have the job for long though, if its any consolation.
|>>|| No. 86343
He will actually become Prime Minister the next day.
|>>|| No. 86346
The Highland Toffee has been reminding me of him all week, this has gone too far!
|>>|| No. 86347
So we're just completely parodying the states now?
|>>|| No. 86351
Thank goodness. It's been far too long since we had an Old Etonian in Number 10.
|>>|| No. 86352
I'm about 90% certain that I made this thread a year or so ago.
Where's my complimentary biscuit?
|>>|| No. 86353
Soggy digestive coming right up, just need to try to get one off to Mrs May
|>>|| No. 86354
>Priti Patel is the new home secretary.
Exactly what do you have to do to become too toxic for a Tory front bench? Two years ago she was bunging money to the Israeli Defense Forces, now she's got one of the premiere jobs in cabinet. Maybe Fox leaving meant they wanted to have someone equally as bent in there?
|>>|| No. 86355
I'm quite looking forward to mad bastard Raab being Foreign Secretary. He's a master of tact and diplomacy.
|>>|| No. 86356
The children screaming as Boris gave his first speech was infuriating. For fucks sake, not only can nobody hear what they're saying but nobody cares.
He's also de-facto Deputy PM.
|>>|| No. 86359
>Boris Johnson has signalled his ruthless determination to deliver Brexit and stoked speculation about an early general election by sacking more than half of Theresa May’s cabinet and packing his team with Vote Leave veterans and rightwing free marketers.
>Despite the new prime minister’s repeated insistence that he is a one-nation Conservative, he handed the job of home secretary to Priti Patel, who advocated the return of capital punishment as recently as 2011, and the Treasury to Thatcher devotee Sajid Javid.
>Dominic Raab, who made headlines during his own leadership campaign when he said he would not call himself a fisherperson, is the new foreign secretary, and will be Johnson’s stand-in at prime minister’s questions.
Footnote: not wanting to get all MRA here, but why is it worthy of headlines when somebody says they're not a fisherperson?
|>>|| No. 86361
>the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.
>Some classic examples:
>3. The fisherpersons who constantly argue about whether you can be a real fisherperson or not without believing in X, Y and Z and wanting to empower women in some very specific way, and who demand everybody support controversial policies like affirmative action or affirmative consent laws (bailey). Then when someone says they don’t really like feminism very much, they object “But feminism is just the belief that women are people!” (motte) Then once the person hastily retreats and promises he definitely didn’t mean women aren’t people, the fisherpersons get back to demanding everyone support affirmative action because feminism, or arguing about whether you can be a fisherperson and wear lipstick.
|>>|| No. 86362
His "gloomsters and doubters" rhetoric is already quite tiresome, but I look forward to seeing how it holds up in three months when he's got exactly nothing from the EU and is desperately trying to spin May's deal into a bright new dawn. The Tories will likely swallow it whole anyway.
|>>|| No. 86363
I wonder if anyone other than me was paying sufficient attention to notice that he has just claimed both an increase and decrease in crime. He's called for more police officers to deal with an increase, but in response to the Leader of the
Red Guard Opposition defended the government record citing a decrease.
|>>|| No. 86364
Wasn't he talking about his record as Mayor of London? I don't know, I tuned out after a while.
|>>|| No. 86365
Boris Johnson tax plan beneficiaries will be 77% male, says Labour
Labour has criticised Boris Johnson after an analysis of his flagship tax plan to cut rates for higher earners found that almost 80% of the people to benefit would be men.
Sometimes I wonder how these utter charlatans can ever be in power and then Labour come along to remind us how much of a shambles they are. When I hear that high earners are going to receive a tax cut it is very low down on my, and the majority of people's, list of priorities what they've got between their legs.
|>>|| No. 86367
Christ. He probably thought "won't it be jolly funny if I pretend I think I'm playing rugger" and ended up injuring a bloke.
|>>|| No. 86368
All of which raises the question of what he's pretending to do right now, and what his true motives are.
|>>|| No. 86370
>Boris Johnson after an analysis of his flagship tax plan to cut rates for higher earners
It looks fairly transparent from here.
|>>|| No. 86374
I can't fucking figure out how to embed with a timestamp, so skip to 1:02.
|>>|| No. 86375
Becoming PM is an awful lot of work just to save yourself some tax. Much easier to just dodge the lot by funneling it offshore.
|>>|| No. 86376
He's not dumb. He's playing dumb to distract from him being a calculating, cutthroat cronyist Tory cunt and it's working almost as well as Trump saying something mean about Mexicans every time a story about him being owned by the Russians pops up.
|>>|| No. 86377
After the whole bus affair I assume he said something in his speech today about children, relationships, and Iran. The scary thing about it all is that evidently this tactic works.
|>>|| No. 86380
I don't understand what's to gain from all this shit. Fine let's just give the elites everything, then what? World's still fucked and they'll just end up getting torn apart by the masses and going down with the rest of the ship. Absolutely mental.
|>>|| No. 86381
I think they've convinced themselves that "post-truth" means science isn't actually real and they can do whatever they want. Everything will just continue as it always has. What we have now will go on forever.
|>>|| No. 86382
>A network of lobbyists, politicians and campaign groups is pushing the UK towards a hard-Brexit, with the aim of axing environmental protection in the name of free-market ideology.
Oh fuck me, that's what it was all about all this time? They wanted to leave the EU because of their secret anti-tree ideology? Because capitalism itself hates the planet, and the EU was the only thing standing in the way of them privatising the ozone layer itself?
Fucking bonkers. I mean, of course free market capitalists hate having to act responsibly in any way whatsoever, but if you think their primary concern is climate change you're not just missing the big picture. You're stood an inch from the canvas examining someone's toe nail.
|>>|| No. 86383
I disagree. Escaping environmental regulation may not be the primary reason for Brexit, but it is certainly the most important in terms of outcome. The "big picture" perspective is existential crisis and taking notice of any move we make which accelerates it.
|>>|| No. 86385
There was a reason for all those "bonkers Brussels bureaucrats" and "elf'n'safety gone mad" stories.
|>>|| No. 86387
The environmental regulation argument is just Guardian readership masturbation material.
A hard Brexit, with massively reduced immigration and international travel, and economic slowdown and increased prices of everything, would be great for the environment.
The Green Party only support remain because they been taken over by Paul Joseph Watsons and the green agenda has been diluted. The Green Party of the 70s wanted to reduce the population of the UK, not have open borders.
|>>|| No. 86388
>A hard Brexit, with massively reduced immigration and international travel, and economic slowdown and increased prices of everything, would be great for the environment.
Unless Boris builds more roads encouraging internal travel, relaxes bans on dangerous pesticides and does other things that fit with the aims of his climate denialist mates it won't be. Which he's already doing.
>The Green Party only support remain because they been taken over by Paul Joseph Watsons and the green agenda has been diluted. The Green Party of the 70s wanted to reduce the population of the UK, not have open borders.
God forbid a political party changes its position over time. It's unheard of! Obvious evidence of "dilution".
|>>|| No. 86389
That'll be why they got almost 2 million votes in this year's Euros and only 2 thousand in 1974 II Election Boogaloo.
|>>|| No. 86390
>Which he's already doing.
No he's not. Boris has only just become PM and in his speeches since then has repeatedly made reference to GMOs which cut down on pesticide use. If we're talking about wider EU Exit policy then erosion of the precautionary principle (by people who understand how our system of government works) regarding pesticides is perfectly understandable as its just a cover for protectionism without scientific basis.
Have a look at the political climate and tell me if 2 million is anywhere near where they should be polling.
|>>|| No. 86391
>PM Boris Johnson pledges £3.6 billion boost for 'left behind towns'
Well lads, it looks like we might be able to return to our post-industrial shithole hometowns soon, eh?
|>>|| No. 86393
It won't work. The initial 'Northern Powerhouse' rail line was from Liverpool to Hull and also speeding up routes between Sheffield and Newcastle. Boris has only committed to improving the line between Manchester and Leeds.
Plus, a lot of the people who complain about the North being neglected instead of the South will also complain that all of the funding is going to Leeds, Manchester or York rather than the likes of Scunthorpe, Carlisle, Burnley, Barnsley and so on.
|>>|| No. 86395
I'm sure he'd be more than amenable to a few billion quid on a scheme to tear down all of the north's terraces, and replace it with half as many houses that cost twice as much and look like this.
|>>|| No. 86396
Grim houses seem to exist down here too, but it's just not the overwhelming majority.
They don't need to be double the size, just not so bloody grim. I despise the rent I pay in London but if you offered me this or half the rent and double the space in my northern town I'd choose here every time.
People want to live in nice places, who knew?
|>>|| No. 86400
Is this such a bad thing? I always heard the pound was overvalued and it damaged our exports as a result. Maybe it'll help a bit with tourism too.
|>>|| No. 86401
>Is this such a bad thing?
For a country with a substantial trade deficit, it's a very bad thing.
>I always heard the pound was overvalued and it damaged our exports as a result
You'll hear a lot of things. This is a common meme parroted by the sort of person who shorts sterling, or has some other incentive to call the fall a good thing.
|>>|| No. 86402
With maybe some exceptions like in tech, didn't the supposedly inevitable price increases due to a weaker pound fail to materialise after the referendum?
|>>|| No. 86403
It's very difficult to gauge what's happened as a result of currency devaluation against what would have happened anyway or is as a result of other external factors, but broccoli certainly seems to have gone up in price a fair whack.
|>>|| No. 86404
Er, no? Inflation (CPI) broke through 3% after the referendum, having sunk comfortably below 2% after the crisis. It's now hovering around the 2% mark, rather than dipping well below that, as a transient spike would suggest.
|>>|| No. 86405
GBP lost 20%. What is a one or two percent shift in inflation next to that?
|>>|| No. 86418
Labour almost losing their deposit. Who'd have thought that 'straight talking, honest politics' would make such a hash of Brexit?
|>>|| No. 86420
Makes it easier for American companies to buy our ailing ones. All part of the plan.
|>>|| No. 86421
This is all some massive prank right? I am really hoping that instead of Boris walking out if the door of no. 10, it's Justin Lee Collins announcing Brexit was all a prank for the Friday Night Project.
I mean it just feels like every bit of news I see or hear is bad, and it's like watching a mukli-car pile up in slow motion, powerless to do anything about it.
The worst thing is, public support for this shit show is as high as ever, and it's all so polarising that I think the last reasonable discussion anyone had about anything was in early 2017.
Even if it's not Brisket related news, the climate is fucked or another mentalist has shot somewhere up in America, or the cold war is restarting.
It didn't seem this fucked a few years ago, or is there some sort of cognitive bias I'm experiencing ?
I would sage this incoherent rant but mobile site won't let me click it.
|>>|| No. 86423
You're suffering from mean world syndrome. Too much consumption of the news is bad for you.
I expect what will happen with Johnson is similar to what happened to Corbyn at the 2015 general election. A lot of the media portrayed Corbyn to be this utterly evil daft militant wog loving monster, but when people listened to his policies and what he said during the election campaign they thought he was quite reasonable and not like he was being portrayed as. The likes of the Guardian portraying Johnson as a mega fascist almost on par with Hitler will similarly backfire.
|>>|| No. 86424
The Guardian does have form in the area of backfiring character assassinations, but you really can't compare the media's treatment of Johnson to Corbyn. I mean there is no contest. Corbyn gets shit flung at him every single day. Johnson on the other hand is not Hitler but the idea that he is "quite reasonable" is ludicrous. He has shown himself to be a liar, a racist, a philanderer, incompetent, corrupt, and worst of all, a Thatcherite. These are not smears; they are based on things he has said and done.
|>>|| No. 86425
What has Johnson actually done since becoming Prime Minister? He's pledged to increase the number of police officers by around 20,000, he's pledged to increase the amount of funding per pupil, he's pledged to improve rail infrastructure in the north, he's pledged to improve access to full-fibre broadband.
People will think this is "quite reasonable" and will ignore the calls from people accusing him of being Nazi scum, even when they quite rightly point out he's a charlatan. This tactic doesn't work, like when people tried to shame others into not voting Tory in 2015.
|>>|| No. 86426
Pledging isn't an action. The things he's done are put two billion aside for brexit-related infrastructure, allocated £100 million for an advertising campaign to convince Europe we're going to leave*, nigh-lost his majority and caused a huge slump in the value of the pound.
*I have to confess I don't see what the logic of this is. Why do they need convincing of that? If you're leaving a party you say goodbye then you leave, you don't spend two hours trying to persuade people that you're going to leave first.
|>>|| No. 86427
No one's calling him "Nazi scum", you jeb end, stop chatting shit. The difference between him and Corbyn is that Corbyn went into an election with a lifetime's reputation of calling a spade a spade, and spending most of his parliamentary career as a nobody for his troubles, he also made efforts to get younger voters out en masse. Meanwhile Johnson is a notorious bullshit merchant who's spent years trying to get into Number 10 with all the subtlety of a Whitby seagull attempting to steal your chips. Johnson's sudden bout of public spending is high risk, because if when reveals itself to be vapid rhetoric, it will confirm all the worst things voters suspected about Johnson. Unlike the opposition people generally expect a governing party to do the things it says, you know, because it's the party in charge of events more important than which grey, depressed, Northern city to hold it's conference.
And Jeremy Corbyn didn't even fight the 2015 GE as party leader, you soft git. I don't know if you meant the leadership election or the 2017 GE, but I assumed 2017 for the purposes of this post.
|>>|| No. 86428
He has also pledged to deliver Brexit by the end of November even if that means no deal, something which basically every economist thinks would be at least as damaging as the 2008 financial crisis. He has found £2.1bn on the Magic Money Tree for no-deal preparation, which is either an imprudent waste of money or it makes a lie of the last decade of austerity. I live just down the road from the Vauxhall and Jaguar-Land Rover factories on the Mersey; Vauxhall are currently looking for 250 redundancies, JLR are on reduced-time working and both are likely to close in the event of a no-deal at a cost of over 7,000 jobs. That's 7,000 families going from secure and well-paid employment to the dole, with a devastating secondary impact on the local economy.
On a fundamental level, I don't think either Corbyn or Johnson are serious men. I think that Corbyn is an ideologue offering 1950s solutions to 1970s problems; Johnson is a lazy populist who has a clear track record of saying whatever he thinks will get a good reaction in the room. I know that most of my local MPs are basically decent people trying to do the best for their constituents (with the notable exception of a couple of absolute shitbags), but I don't get that impression at all from their party leaders - I think they care far more about cheering crowds than the real problems of the people they purport to represent.
According to polling by YouGov, only 14% of people would describe Johnson as being honest or having good moral character. Only 25% think that he would make a good prime minister. It's clear that the vast majority of the electorate see straight through him, but some will vote for him anyway as the lesser of two evils.
|>>|| No. 86429
I worked at the Vauxhall(s) plant at El Porto, and speaking to people I know there they say if there's a no deal they are closing.
|>>|| No. 86430
I can't see how any major manufacturing operation could survive the disruption of No Deal. Even if we get everything back to normal within a few months, the cost of moving the operation to mainland Europe would be less than the cost of disruption. In all likelihood, we won't get everything back to normal - they'll face significant tariffs and non-tariff barriers. If your main market is the EU, it just doesn't make sense to operate out of a country that has worse trading terms than Turkey.
|>>|| No. 86432
It's bizarre that in my mid 20s I'm finally completing the conversion from do-gooder 16 year old Labour member to small-c conservative.
You never think it will happen to you and then suddenly it does. It's bizarre how morally righteous I used to be and little cracks appear in your thinking that make you question my beliefs, then more start to grow and before you know it you've completely abandoned it.
Both mainstream sides of thought in this country have serious flaws, but it feels like at least on this side there's less self-loathing and mental gymnastics, and actually I don't think tradition is a bad thing either.
Growing older, eh.
|>>|| No. 86433
Sooner or later you should get checked for early onset dementia would be my advice.
|>>|| No. 86434
Does it not bother you that your opinions changing due to a natural process might mean that they're not the result of logic or morality or reflection and instead you're just going along with your programming?
|>>|| No. 86435
It really depends what your values are and how you engage with politics.
I'm in my late 20s and, if anything, certain serious discoveries have led me to deepen the "leftist" beliefs I had as a teenager. The main one was learning about UK foreign policy -- changed my view of "our" role in the world, internal politics, and of nation states generally.
I also think stereotypes about the left are overblown. Only the silliest and safest brand of leftist identity politics are allowed to break through into the mainstream precisely because they don't pose a threat. The biggest obstacles to organising somewhere like the UK come down to how only a narrow spectrum of views are allowed for serious consideration, and the fact everyone is already fucking knackered trying to earn a bit of money.
|>>|| No. 86436
Literally the point of the post - you don't expect it to happen to you and you never think it will and then here we are.
I agree with you on the leftist stereotypes, but I have to say I also find leftist politics got exhausting. Trying to be the most virtuous all the time, the most 'right on' does eventually get boring and extreme the point that you realise you can't really win, so why bother really trying?
|>>|| No. 86437
>Literally the point of the post - you don't expect it to happen to you and you never think it will and then here we are.
It's not even figuratively the point of your post. Whether or not you expect it to happen is unrelated to reflecting on what beliefs you hold and why.
|>>|| No. 86438
What's your point? Are you wanting to argue over the exact message of the post? I don't get it.
|>>|| No. 86440
>but it feels like at least on this side there's less self-loathing and mental gymnastics
Isn't your whole post just mental gymnastics in aid of justifying your change of heart? It reads that way to me.
People tend to say you grow out of left wing thinking once you have money and want to pay less taxes and grow less idealistic with the ravages of time, but I'd say I'm still the same annoying socialist I was at 16, the only thing I've grown out of is thinking communism might work.
|>>|| No. 86444
I'm not trying to justify it, nor am I caring if people think it is justified, was just sharing in a political thread something which I thought might be of interest to people and commenting on how it must be a very typical journey for a lot of people.
As usual I did expect people to pipe up and say 'well it certainly didn't happen to me!', but I was more shocked at how a lot of people probably think they're above all this stuff and then they get older and it does indeed happen, even to those of us who are specifically aware of it.
It's not really a tax thing, or a socialist thing, it's more just how I see the world. I couldn't actually vote conservative because I don't want somebody to rip apart the NHS, continue the housing price mess etc, but I would and probably will comfortably vote Lib Dem for the first time now.
|>>|| No. 86445
>I also think stereotypes about the left are overblown. Only the silliest and safest brand of leftist identity politics are allowed to break through into the mainstream precisely because they don't pose a threat.
It is all very silly until they turn up to your otherwise virtuous organization and start shitting all over it by drawing all focus away from the subject matter on to nit picky inclusiveness political points that bog you down in utter bullshit. They can do it because people were too nice to tell them to fuck right off at the beginning because they are worried they have some sort of point and it is them that are out of touch so don't want to appear to be bigoted.
Sadly in real organizations Reg from the People's Front of Judea doesn't turn up and directly confront it, everybody just walks around on egg shells indefinitely and the group loses it's forward momentum and starts to wither to being completely ineffectual.
It is like a virus that tears down other groups that aren't resistant to it, and I say virus because the philosophy is wholly unable to sustain growth and create organisations on it's own, because everything in it's behavior is counter to being able to focus on that.
|>>|| No. 86447
You seem to be conflating extreme political activists with everyday labour voters. They are certainly not the same.
|>>|| No. 86449
>but I would and probably will comfortably vote Lib Dem for the first time now.
Then how in any way are you a "small 'c' conservative?!"
|>>|| No. 86450
Because I largely believe in the conservative ideals and would certainly probably be a coalition years lib dem supporter, but I can't vote for big 'C' conservatism because of some specifics to them.
|>>|| No. 86452
I've always held that making people of different identities feel safe and included can do nothing but make a movement stronger. However you seem to be railing against so-called identity politics on the grounds that it makes organisations ineffective.
Can you provide some concrete examples of what you mean?
|>>|| No. 86453
The Conservative party hasn't been conservative in a long time. Conservatism is fundamentally rooted in a desire to avoid fucking everything up - the clue is very much in the name - which naturally translates into a careful approach to politics in which any change from the status quo is made as gradually and tentatively as possible, with reverting to the status quo being the default position.
Brexit (and the spectre of a chaotic no-deal) is the obvious example of Tory radicalism, but it's far from the only one. The switch to Universal Credit was pushed through, even after the pilot schemes made it obvious that the computer system didn't work properly, there were major shortcomings in the design of the system and people were being forced into destitution as a result. Same with ESA and the Work Capability Assessment - it was obvious that ATOS/Maximus were doing a terrible job and ruining lives, but nobody thought to just revert to the old system. Neither policy has saved a meaningful amount of money.
I can't in good conscience vote for Corbyn, because his whole platform is based on radical (albeit often very vaguely articulated) change. I don't think he'd change his mind on mass re-nationalisation, even if it turned out to be a complete shit-show. I don't think he'd cut back on spending if the OBR said he needed to; I doubt he'd cut back on spending even if the pound was in freefall, inflation was in triple digits and the World Bank were calling.
Boris has a track record as London mayor of pissing money up the wall on schemes that he had been told would be unworkable, from Boris Island to the water cannons. His approach to Brexit based on wishful thinking and "British pluck" is a million miles from anything that could be reasonably described as conservative. He seems utterly convinced that any political problem can be fixed with bluff and bluster.
The Lib Dems are largely unproven in government, but they have a pretty good track record at the local level; they stand almost no chance of getting a majority, but depriving Labour and the Tories of a majority and forcing them into some kind of coalition would at least temper their worst impulses to some extent. For all the stick that Clegg got about the Cameron coalition, they did actually manage to get a lot of sensible policies through parliament and block a lot of daft policies.
|>>|| No. 86455
And I'm sure you have a horrific story to tell about how austerity policies have directly affected you.
|>>|| No. 86456
Not him, but I think that identity politics is rooted in a subtle and insidious form of dolphin rape that we don't readily recognise.
Sajid Javid is a Tory MP who happens to be Asian. Nobody is denying his lived experience as a British Asian, but it isn't central to who he is as a person. A quick search on Twitter will turn up an awful lot of left-wing activists calling him a "coconut" - brown on the outside, white on the inside. A lot of people on the left seem to believe that an Asian Tory has somehow betrayed their Asianness by being a Tory.
I don't want to gloss over right-wing dolphin rape for a moment - there were plenty of nasty bastards who were outraged at a "p**i" becoming home secretary - but that doesn't excuse the subtler form of dolphin rape that is implicit in identity politics. Your race or sexuality shouldn't define you as a person, but a lot of people on the left seem to believe otherwise. If black politician says that gang members in Hackney need better male role models and a sense of personal responsibility, many people on the left cannot accept that they simply hold a different political opinion, but instead accuse them of betraying their ethnicity, of being an uncle tom, of expressing internalised dolphin rape. The content of their mind is devalued because of the colour of their skin.
I'm all for inclusiveness, which is precisely why I am made uncomfortable by identity politics. I've been in far too many rooms where BME and LGBT people have been patronised and othered by ostensible "allies". I've heard far too many conversations where someone has been made to feel less safe and less welcome precisely because of a patronising and hyper-sensitive attitude to diversity. We absolutely need to fight against all forms of bigotry, but we can't do that with an insidious form of bigotry that elevates categories of identity above personal choices.
|>>|| No. 86457
I bet the water cannons more than paid for themselves. £300k is fuck all to pander to his base and appear tough on unrest. It's hardly his fault that Theresa May placed the hooman rights of rioters above a deserved good hiding is it?
And after it emerged that May tried to hide intelligence from Boris as Foreign Secretary it's hardly unreasonable to view her refusal to okay the cannons as petty and politically calculated.
|>>|| No. 86458
>I bet the water cannons more than paid for themselves. £300k is fuck all to pander to his base and appear tough on unrest.
The money for them came out of the public purse so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>It's hardly his fault that Theresa May placed the hooman rights of rioters above a deserved good hiding is it?
They were also broken and not roadworthy.
|>>|| No. 86459
It might have been sensible to ask the home office for permission before spending 300 grand on them. It might also have been useful to ask the police whether they actually wanted water cannons - a key reason for the home office refusal was opposition from ACPO.
|>>|| No. 86462
I am not saying that at all. My statement is that it takes very few to pollute otherwise sensible movements of everyday labour voters.
>I've always held that making people of different identities feel safe and included can do nothing but make a movement stronger. However you seem to be railing against so-called identity politics on the grounds that it makes organisations ineffective.
The issue is it takes time and effort to write up a proper thought out discrimination policy, when really it should be as simple as saying 'this organisation is against being a unreasonable to people'. most non business organisations are a hand full of people trying to manage a larger group of people on good will they don't have access to a lawyer and a public relations expert to handle these issues, they would much rather just focus on what goal they are trying to achieve.
And these things are a never ending source of contention and argument that distracts away from focusing on the intentions of an organisation.
>Can you provide some concrete examples of what you mean?
The most concreate example I can point to which you would have heard of is the 99% movement which spent less time dealing with the economic issues and message and more time making sure it was inclusive in a way that made it ineffectual.
I've also overheard a young adult privileged white girl complaining at a volunteer run convection that it didn't have a good enough discrimination policy whist standing in said convention, one which I have been the committee for previously. These people are very quick to complain how things are phlegmatic but they won't offer practical solutions because they know there isn't one. I would have spoken up about 'well you obviously feel comfortable enough to be here' but I'm sure they would write a blog post and attack the organization on social media afterwards because being confronted made them feel unsafe.
|>>|| No. 86463
How did you manage to delete-to-edit that post twice and still have so many spelling mistakes?
|>>|| No. 86464
They were made roadworthy and that is included in the £300k cost. What do you think new water cannon cost? Hint: it's going on six times as much.
Cameron had given assurances that they would be licensed if more riots were to occur. It's better to have your preparations go to waste than be caught with your pants down.
|>>|| No. 86466
I was looking for that sketch of the scary Quakers and found this.
|>>|| No. 86467
Yeah Stewlee recently wrote for the Guardian on Boris, referencing his past two routines, and addressing the reader as 'dude' for some reason. I'm sure the latter is unbearably clever in some way that has gone over my head, or will be made clear in an extra feature when the column comes out on DVD.
|>>|| No. 86469
I haven't read the piece, but Johnson did a whole bit about the acronym "D.U.D.E" in his leadership victory speech.
|>>|| No. 86471
>I've always held that making people of different identities feel safe and included can do nothing but make a movement stronger. However you seem to be railing against so-called identity politics on the grounds that it makes organisations ineffective.
|>>|| No. 86472
I have, and I see no evidence that said organisation is ineffective in its aims as a direct result of asking people to use the right pronouns and so on.
|>>|| No. 86473
Well you've done 2 things there. The first is claiming up is down.
The second is to change the goal posts to just being about misuse of pro-nouns to dodge acknowledging the shit show caused by focusing too heavily on inclusiveness.
|>>|| No. 86474
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE!
I find it difficult to comprehend words of more than three syllables. Can we please limit our usage of excessively polysyllabic words?
|>>|| No. 86475
I've got some bad news for you, sunshine. The PM is a master of sesquipedalian loquatiousness.
|>>|| No. 86476
If you went into the room and yelled that you might shit up the movement for a life time. They can only talk in Jargon.
|>>|| No. 86477
Maybe try writing this post again so it's coherent? I'm still open to being shown how being inclusive makes a movement less effective.
|>>|| No. 86505
Sorry, mods. I am not having that. We are not Septic. It'll be the Third World War, not World War Three.
|>>|| No. 86508
Seeing the anti no-deal writing on the wall, he's actually going to suspend parliament, the massive great big gimp.
|>>|| No. 86511
Shouldn't we be doing something about this? Anything at all? It's completely undemocratic and basically a coup by the fucking goblin himself.
|>>|| No. 86524
Given that the lads in Cheltenham will know your plans of revolution before you've even decided to revolt, what exactly do you think you'd be able to do?
|>>|| No. 86525
There are protests up and down the country, or so I'm told. There's even one in Chester. Or we could just start... no, sorry, can't post that, it's criminal offence.
|>>|| No. 86529
Let's all write sternly worded letters instead.
|>>|| No. 86823
If I was going to try and get around this law requiring me to write a specific letter to ask for an extension on the 19th of October, I would have a short break to John O'Groats and then when I have to write the letter (at 23.55) I would give it to a fat man to hand deliver to Tusk, and the fat man would start walking there. We'd be out of the EU before the letter even arrives!
|>>|| No. 86829
For the same reason that if I paid my electricity bill by setting off a cheque as a message in a bottle on the day it's due, I'd probably still get my power cut before SSE fishes it out of the sea on their end.
|>>|| No. 86830
Section 1 subsection 4 of the Surrender Act 2019, sometimes referred to as the Capitulation Act, states that "The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019" before it goes on to specify the method of communicating this.
On the face of it, sending a letter that he knows, as an assumed reasonable person, cannot arrive in time does nothing to discharge his duty to seek an extension. We needn't examine how courts effortlessly swat away these puerile word games, because he failed to defeat the letter of the law, much less the spirit.
|>>|| No. 86832
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
There's absolutely nothing here that says he must ensure that the letter reaches the recipient in time. It says he must "seek to obtain...an extension... By sending... A letter".
|>>|| No. 86835
>There's absolutely nothing here that says he must ensure that the letter reaches the recipient in time.
Gidden v Humberside, m7.
|>>|| No. 86836
That's a judgement that any act specifying that a document should be served by post should be considered to have been delivered in the due course of post.
However, Benn Act says he must "send a letter" but has no actual requirement that Mr Johnson uses the postal service to send it, or specify a time limit for when the European Commission should have received said letter.
|>>|| No. 86837
>That's a judgement that any act specifying that a document should be served by post should be considered to have been delivered in the due course of post.
You might want to read it before commenting, m7.
|>>|| No. 86839
The authorities attempted to serve notice during a well-advertised postal strike. It was delayed by the strike, and accordingly it was not served.
If Johnson attempts to send the letter by some way calculated not to get there, then in the eyes of the law he will not have sent it.
|>>|| No. 86840
It will have been calculated to get there, hand delivered by a courier who is walking directly. The summons in your case was required to come within 14 days, the Benn letter has no similar requirement.
|>>|| No. 86841
Contrary to popular belief, the plot of Air Bud is not an accurate summary of legal practice.
|>>|| No. 86848
"What would you like for supper, dear?"
"Well, myself- that is to say, I, will not commit to a potentially catastrophic outcome before weighing up all the options that are on the table."
"But I haven't even put out the plates and cutlery yet."
"Then I will answer that question when the time is right."
|>>|| No. 86856
The no deal has been part of his plan all along. Why bother fucking around negotiating at all? Just plan for the worst, hope for the best and stiff upper lip, etc.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]