|
Puntification posted:the majorities of thatcher and major would have been larger are other examples, I was more concerned with the frequently espoused myth that Labour never has a majority in England and relies on Scottish votes. Major's a pretty good example, actually; he had to go begging for votes from the Ulster Unionists because of how razor-thin his margin in the Commons was. Politics in the 90s would be very different if he'd had a solid majority. I'm not saying that Labour relies on Scottish votes and I've not seen anyone argue that. Contrariwise, you can't say that having a left-leaning 10th of the population disappear from the electoral calculus won't have any effect on UK elections. UK politics will skew rightwards as both parties aim for the new, rightward centre ground. Not that this is any reason for the Scots to stay, as a leftie myself I don't blame them from wanting out from the Tories, but please don't tell those of us who remain that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference that they're doing so, because that's just not true. Scottish independence doesn't mean the ~thousand year Tory reich~, but it does mean an (even more) rightwing UK for the rest of us.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:
More like dress up as Dredd and do the entire restaurant for Impersonation of Law Enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Major's a pretty good example, actually; he had to go begging for votes from the Ulster Unionists because of how razor-thin his margin in the Commons was. Politics in the 90s would be very different if he'd had a solid majority. You seem to be attacking a position I've not actually argued for or asserted but as it happens I'm not actually sold on the concept of an inevitable rightward skew post-Scottish independence since Labour party policy has been to court swing right-wing/centrist voters and ignore the left for literally decades anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:More like dress up as Dredd and do the entire restaurant for Impersonation of Law Enforcement. Just make sure you have the eagle on the right shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
anyone on the Indian subcontinent would find it harder to reduce evil to a conveniently fun-sized foreigner with the Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War in the background Indonesia has the New Order purges and separatisms at home
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it pretty much impossible to buy the idea that ISIS actually pose a meaningful threat to Britain? I know people have been casting around for a worthy successor to the Soviet Union since 1991 but we're really scraping the barrel now. If we're actually thinking of kicking off Iraq 3.0 as a result of two murders then I kind of don't even know what to say any more.
Zephro fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
It's propaganda that works for both sides. After all, when people are kidnapped thousands of miles away and then killed thousands of miles away, it's a reminder that this isn't just something that's happening thousands of miles away! If we do end up in a war it won't be because our state and military apparatus are so clueless that they're being goaded into doing exactly what IS wants. The popular support on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
not really then again, neither did the IRA
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Does anyone else find it pretty much impossible to buy the idea that ISIS actually pose a meaningful threat to Britain? I know people have been casting around for a worthy successor to the Soviet Union since 1991 but we're really scraping the barrel now. If we're actually thinking of kicking off Iraq 3.0 as a result of two murders then I kind of don't even know what to say any more. How does leaving ISIS to pillage their way across the Middle-East help British interests? Or indeed, any human beings caught in their path? Well done for focusing on the two Westerners though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Human_rights_abuses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBbIA20eE4
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Prince John posted:How does leaving [evil enemy] to pillage their way across [far away country] help British interests? Or indeed, any human beings caught in their path? Well done for focusing on [our latest failed excuse for war] though. Insert enemies where appropriate, continue forever war against The Terrorism for as long as politically expedient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
Did the BBC site always use "vows" so much in their headlines? Last couple months I've noticed they never report politicians or organisations merely saying that they'll do something, they always "vow" to do it. Maybe it's an old trend and I'm just noticing it lately, dunno
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Budget cut backs mean they only have one thesaurus left and that's under the BBC news desk to stop it wobbling on tv.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Does anyone else find it pretty much impossible to buy the idea that ISIS actually pose a meaningful threat to Britain? I know people have been casting around for a worthy successor to the Soviet Union since 1991 but we're really scraping the barrel now. If we're actually thinking of kicking off Iraq 3.0 as a result of two murders then I kind of don't even know what to say any more. I think it will be more of a continual and largely ignored bombing campaign. ISIS is a weird one, because they are heavily backed by the house of Saud, and by Turkey allowing them free reign provided they were left alone, and the west in general spent the first few years of this conflict tacitly supporting anyone who wasn't Assad. Probably the largest threat would be terror attacks in the UK, and the resulting resurgence in support for the fash/loving with the middle east. Self perpetuating monster. Besides, give it a little while and the second cold war will be sufficiently tepid enough to use as justification for military spending instead! Hurrah for humanity! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
Torka posted:Did the BBC site always use "vows" so much in their headlines? Last couple months I've noticed they never report politicians or organisations merely saying that they'll do something, they always "vow" to do it. Maybe it sounds better than "promise" or "pledge" which have a nasty history of being broken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
This isnt the Scotland thead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Antti posted:Maybe it sounds better than "promise" or "pledge" which have a nasty history of being broken. It's also quite a few characters shorter, for the headline and particularly the sidebar. The sub-editor's art in condensing an entire story into as few characters as possible is one of the few things that has translated from a print world into the online world (although most newspapers have got rid of subs now because we've all got spellcheckers and online layup why should we pay some weirdo who likes the word "rumpus"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Wolfsbane posted:Insert enemies where appropriate, continue forever war against The Terrorism for as long as politically expedient. Except that this isn't some fabricated poo poo about 45 minutes or fake terrorists, it's really happening. It's completely the opposite of politically expedient for the government to go to war right now - public opinion is solidly against it - but the moral case seems pretty clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Except that this isn't some fabricated poo poo about 45 minutes or fake terrorists, it's really happening. It's completely the opposite of politically expedient for the government to go to war right now - public opinion is solidly against it - but the moral case seems pretty clear cut. But no, we have morons like Liam Fox saying that ISIS justifies even more money and powers for the spy agencies because it's a mortal threat, you see! http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/22/surveillance-powers-liam-fox-isis
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Except that this isn't some fabricated poo poo about 45 minutes or fake terrorists, it's really happening. It's completely the opposite of politically expedient for the government to go to war right now - public opinion is solidly against it - but the moral case seems pretty clear cut. So what happens in 10 year's time, when we get another "new" terrorist group that are said to be too "extreme" for what ISIS* turn into? *the exact phrasing used for ISIS in relation to al Quaeda
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Well done for focusing on the two Westerners though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
It is a very difficult issue, IS are no longer a terrorist group, they are a newly emerged state which is openly committing a range of atrocities. On the other hand they're very western media savvy and clearly want Western intervention. It is reasonable to expect powerful nations to actively stop genocide. Ideally you'd want this done via the UN but Russia's support for Assad makes this very difficult. Additionally Western Nations desire to intervene will be less than pure. Intervention has a lot of downsides but IS are truly monstrous and need to neutralized somehow. Backing regional powers to do so seems potentially better but that's a path back to propping up regional strongmen again. There is no easy answer but ignoring IS because they aren't a major threat to the UK right now isn't an answer either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:There is no easy answer but ignoring IS because they aren't a major threat to the UK right now isn't an answer either. quote:Backing regional powers to do so seems potentially better but that's a path back to propping up regional strongmen again. edit: I mean politicians should make that argument, obviously, not you 
Zephro fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
You can't ignore the situation in Iraq because ISIS will behead the queen! ReV VAdAUL posted:Backing regional powers to do so seems potentially better but that's a path back to propping up regional strongmen again. Hmmm, perhaps the west could avoid this and establish democracy with a few airstrikes. I'm sure we'd be greeted as liberators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:It is a very difficult issue, IS are no longer a terrorist group, they are a newly emerged state which is openly committing a range of atrocities. On the other hand they're very western media savvy and clearly want Western intervention. Why though (re:the bolded part)? Is it because it would drive up recruitment enrollment (for lack of better description)? What do they benefit with getting US/UK involvement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
double nine posted:Why though (re:the bolded part)? Is it because it would drive up recruitment enrollment (for lack of better description)? What do they benefit with getting US/UK involvement? I think it's difficult to know what they actually wanted out of the beheadings. The belief that brutalising foreign civilians will make them more compliant refuses to go away, despite the countless examples to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
The enthusiasm for beheadings probably also stems from the belief that soft, decadent, insular and passive Westerners lack the stomach to confront atrocity and that when faced with a clear depiction of brutality their reaction will not be a desire for vengeance but a terrified skittering away from trouble and excuses that "it's not our problem". While a beheading might provoke a brief flurry of cosmetic airstrikes for the media, it follows in this model that ultimately governments with an eye on the next election with uncooperative voters lack the stamina to truly finish the job and so the attacks can be confidently weathered.
kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
That logic explains why IS would be ok with publicising the violence but not why they'd do it in the first place. Their course of action is win-win in their view, they are goading the imperialist powers which currently have a terrible reputation in the area and aren't really willing to intervene again: either they're free to goad the USA and UK and can weather their tepid interventions while proving that these great powers can't destroy IS (which is a serious recruiting tool) or there is another massive invasion and they get to start claiming they're repulsing another crusade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Does anyone else find it pretty much impossible to buy the idea that ISIS actually pose a meaningful threat to Britain? I know people have been casting around for a worthy successor to the Soviet Union since 1991 but we're really scraping the barrel now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Torka posted:Did the BBC site always use "vows" so much in their headlines? Last couple months I've noticed they never report politicians or organisations merely saying that they'll do something, they always "vow" to do it. I've notced that, they go through weird trends in headlines. About a year ago it was "[noun] in [activity] bid"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
One reason is that "vow" is shorter than "promise" which means you can fit more words into your headline. See: "romp", "blasts", "cops", "kids", "pal" and much of the tabloid lexicon in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Ephemeron posted:Because the actual successor to the Soviet Union and its sins has anti-aircraft capabilities, a standing army and a few odd nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
I work for the government as an engineer, designing/managing flood defence projects. I got called a "Socialist piece of poo poo" today by a land agent on whose land we're building defences (and protecting 40 properties in the process). He, i kid you not, had a sob story where he tried to tell me how hard done by his clients were for owning 2500 acres of land. Really dont want to go to work tomorrow. Can't be bothered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Well at least you now know where the back up floodplain for the defences are going to go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Finally got my degree result - 2.1 Mech. Engineering, Hons.  I should hopefully know in the next day or so whether the conditional masters place I've got is confirmed. Engage smug mode. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Congratulations! How comes it took until now to get your results - aren't they normally handed out in June or so?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
One exam resit in august, holding up my final classification. Quite annoyed that the resit got capped at 40 although the lecturer was a bit of a sadist with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Anyone got that BBC article that said that businesses were leaving Britain due to low interest rates? Can't seem to find it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:One exam resit in august, holding up my final classification. Quite annoyed that the resit got capped at 40 although the lecturer was a bit of a sadist with it. It's good you got the 2.1. The Uni I went to didn't allow resits of Honours year exams, which created a lot of unnecessary stress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Not strictly UK news, but I didn't anticipate a deal on this being reached so quickly. Maybe Gideon will get a bit of unexpected revenue coming in over the next few years: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/16/international-tax-rule-updates-g20-countries quote:Bold updates to international tax rules designed to force some of the world's biggest multinationals – including Google, Apple, Amazon, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline – to contribute their fair share towards government budgets are to be agreed by G20 countries this weekend. RIP Ireland, you tried to finance a country by stealing tax revenues from bigger nation states and then you died lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Finally got my degree result - 2.1 Mech. Engineering, Hons. Fantastic, well done
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:07
|
|