Politics Election 2019

[Tom]

You only have to look at the average private, unadopted road, to see how market forces don't always work. Council roads are usually (the last twelve years excepted) in reasonable condition. Almost without fail, unadopted private roads are a potholed nightmare - because the properties they serve do not want to pay to maintain it while their neighbours do not.

 

[Embattle]

It's a sensible response to @Wij's post - and I don't see you rebuffing it.

Not the post, just you.

 

[Trem]

Ok Scouse, she's a cunt. Will that do?

Or to put it another way, Tories received over 10 million in donations from fossil fuel companies and climate change naysayers.

She doesn't work for Shell now but she is certainly fucking owned by them.

 

[Scouse]

She doesn't work for Shell now but she is certainly fucking owned by them.

Where do we get this from?

I don't watch BBC news btw.

 

[Scouse]

One in eight on hospital waiting list as backlog grows

Numbers waiting for treatments, such as knee and hip surgery, reaches 6.84 million in England.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Tom]

Where do we get this from?

I don't watch BBC news btw.

Liz Truss campaign’s biggest donation came from wife of former BP executive

Fitriani Hay, wife of James Hay, donated £100,000 to Truss’s successful bid to become PM

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

I dunno why, but I was still thinking of Kuenssberg.

Truss isn't a cunt. She's a thundercunt.

 

[Trem]

I dunno why, but I was still thinking of Kuenssberg.

Truss isn't a cunt. She's a thundercunt.

I only find out news and stuff for myself nowadays. I also avoid the BBC. It gets slagged off by the anti-woke brigade but The Guardian hasn't told me a lie yet and columns by John Crace and Marina Hyde are fucking hilarious/brilliant.

 

[Ormorof]

King Charles and Liz Truss this is indeed the worst timeline

 

[Embattle]

Charles is alright, although he/staff are prone to some rookie mistakes in terms of how something looks at times.

 

[Ormorof]

Charles is alright, although he/staff are prone to some rookie mistakes in terms of how something looks at times.

Considering the amount of reports of him trying to interfere with government over the years and being told to f off as hes not king... Lets see if hes learned anything

 

[Embattle]

Considering the amount of reports of him trying to interfere with government over the years and being told to f off as hes not king... Lets see if hes learned anything

I think he has a lot of opinions, which I'm not always sure is a bad thing.

 

[Raven]

Considering the amount of reports of him trying to interfere with government over the years and being told to f off as hes not king... Lets see if hes learned anything

Well, someone needs to. These fuckers are off the rails and have been for years.

 

[Scouse]

I think he has a lot of opinions, which I'm not always sure is a bad thing.

Yes it is if those opinions circumvent the democratic process. You don't vote for a fucking king.

Point in case - I fully admire his environmental credentials. He got a lot of shit in the 80's for "talking to plants". He's been proven right. But he's also an ardent homeopathist.

It's not competence or education. It's fucking luck. And we shouldn't be subject to his whims. But we are.

 

[Scouse]

I'm guessing the facepalm @Embattle, means you love being ruled by unelected people.

 

[Raven]

Yes it is if those opinions circumvent the democratic process. You don't vote for a fucking king.

Point in case - I fully admire his environmental credentials. He got a lot of shit in the 80's for "talking to plants". He's been proven right. But he's also an ardent homeopathist.

It's not competence or education. It's fucking luck. And we shouldn't be subject to his whims. But we are.

You do realise that we aren't a monarchy and haven't been for a good ~350 years? The queen, or now king, have about as much power as the local vicar.

Other than that, luck? lol. Tie your head on, it might fall off.

 

[Scouse]

You do realise that we aren't a monarchy and haven't been for a good few hundred years?

You do realise that they still weild a lot of power and are immune to a lot of our laws?

Weekly meetings with the PM for example. Would you like weekly meetings with the PM so you can moan about what you don't like? We get pissy when oil barons pay for an audience with the PM. Charlie'll get it for free, weekly, delivered to wherever he fancies.

It's NOT just a figurehead role. If it was, I'd have significantly less objections to their continued existence.

 

[Raven]

Ok scouse, if that's what makes you feel better.

 

[Scouse]

Ok scouse, if that's what makes you feel better.

Head in the sand simpleton view of the world if you like Raven. It's well documented. Refute it if you can. (Or not bother).

 

[Raven]

Ok mate, if that's what makes your day, carry on.

 

[Tom]

The queen, or now king, have about as much power as the local vicar.

That absolutely isn't true. They're the top brass, the rich blue bloods many others aspire to be. They're the ones who own loads of land across the country, including in London. It's an ancient network of money and privilege, and the government is set up to kiss their feet.

Yeah, they don't sit in Parliament and help write legislation. But you can be damn sure that they have their say, and their influence changes laws that affect their interests. They all go to the same schools, meet in the same expensive clubs, shoot the same pheasants, meet at the same events. Nobody is going to tell me they don't exert influence on the law.

 

[Ormorof]

Theres well documented examples where they have influenced governments when laws would affect them negatively, denying this is by claiming they have no influence is absurd flat earth level nonsense

 

[Embattle]

I still have no issue with him publicly having a say, as we all can and do.

The government is under no obligation to do what he wants or be influenced by him, again something which applies to us all even if as usual and always those higher up the tree in all areas of life have a easier access.

No this doesn't mean I want to be ruled by a absolute monarchy either, no matter how someone else frames it.

 

[Scouse]

You're just a naive fool then @Embattle:

Just one example - of thousands:

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

www.theguardian.com

They're above our law. Nobody should be above our law.

If a crime - for example someone gets murdered - on their property, the police have to ask permission for access. Murder hasn't been on the agenda recently, but environmental crimes have clearly been committed and the police have been denied access to gather evidence.

The law should apply fully to them and they should not have lobbying access. They should be titular heads of state at best (although it's a terrible example to everyone on how to run things) - but they're not just titular heads of state. They have real - undemocratic - power.

 

[Embattle]

Another thing we will agree to disagree on, either way this part of the system isn't going to change.

 

[Scouse]

Another thing we will agree to disagree

How can you disagree on the fact that they're above many of our laws? It's plain for everybody to see! It's well documented - it's even down in the statute books. There's literally nothing to disagree with.

Unless it's flat-out denialism from you (you simply can't/won't believe irrefutable evidence) the only subject where we can possibly disagree is that I don't think that's OK - and maybe you do?

 

[Embattle]

How can you disagree on the fact that they're above many of our laws? It's plain for everybody to see! It's well documented - it's even down in the statute books. There's literally nothing to disagree with.

Unless it's flat-out denialism from you (you simply can't/won't believe irrefutable evidence) the only subject where we can possibly disagree is that I don't think that's OK - and maybe you do?

No just on the general subject of the royals is where we disagree.

 

[DaGaffer]

There are constitutional anomalies (like Royal assent in particular) that you don't need in a modern democracy and aren't present in other monarchies like Sweden or the Netherlands, but are almost certainly still in place in the UK because the Queen was the person she was and could be trusted not to fuck anything up. It does not follow that her successors are to be equally trusted and it's incredibly naive to make that assumption. Britain has had unprecedented stability in one small area of its administration, that won't be the case in the future.

 

[Embattle]

Yes but it still isn't the unelected royals that concern me or the the majority, ironically more often than not it is the elected ones.

 

[Scouse]

So, apparently, Liz Truss would have got nowhere near the Prime Ministership without a D&I scheme:

Boris Johnson’s former race adviser says Truss would not be PM without diversity scheme

Samuel Kasumu says Liz Truss would not have been elected without scheme prioritising women and minority candidates

www.theguardian.com

So for me - that's kind of an admission that D&I schemes that push candidates forward based on sex or race aren't meritocracies - and can push utterly unsuitable candidates forward?

The PM, of all jobs in the country, needs to be the absolute best person for the job. But D&I is there to hit targets.

The argument that only if there are two identically capable and talented candidates for a role, one being a white male, one being a black woman, for example - the black woman gets pushed forward in that case - is bullshit. Because really - identically capable?

If you have to hit targets, and there is pressure to do so, and you're already promoting from within a pool that is under-represented - there's no way that argument holds.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have representation. Not at all. I'm saying that the current method may, in fact, be promoting turds to the top just to hit targets.

Discuss?