Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 reds8n wrote:

Or he is from the alternate Mirror mirror dimension -- where people are evil..?

So he's come back after being swapped for the one we've had lately?

Its his twin brother. He was locked up in the attic at a young age, frothing at the mouth over those damn foreigners and making wild claims about taking down the EU. His sensible sibling wanted a promising career in the EU, mainly through working with the fisheries commission.

That boy sure loved his Cod.

I find evil Nigel Farage with a moustache strangely attractive and it disturbs me.

Labour have won their appeal against their appeal. Soon they will appeal this appeal.

Once they have gone through enough appeals, it will become apparent that they appeal to nobody.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37057589

Regardless of Corbyn, retroactively applying a 6month wait to vote period is awful.

Even if Corbyn is unelectable, this idiocy is going to hurt Labours chances far more than getting behind and supporting the leader.

So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.

Also also are they then going to refund these people who now don't get to vote?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.

The problem with that, from the Labour MPs point of view is that they want power and they want it now. I've never been anti Labour, although I've never voted for them, but every time one of them gives an interview at the moment it is all about power. I understand you need to be in a position of power to achieve your objectives, but the manner in which they talk about wanting power is, to me, disturbing.
This is why they aren't prepared to let Corbyn have a run at an election. They believe they'll lose again and not having that power is the worst outcome for them, even worse than splitting the party in to factions.

 reds8n wrote:

Blogs on the network even include those of individual politicians such as Ukip’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, who asks to be paid in a rather unusual manner.

"The quirk about Douglas is that because he is such a fiscally responsible person, he wants payment in gold," Singh says. "Every month instead of sending him a wire transfer, we are sending him a gold nugget."

.. what the feth ?

Yes, this is a thing, if you are of a mind that the world economy is heading for collapse, you get yourself paid in nuggets or those little ingots if paid enough, and squirrel them away for barter come the death of grass, Trump presidency, or whatever else triggers the meltdown of civilisation. Not saying that is Carswells motivation necessarily, but he wouldn't be alone.

Events will probably prove him wise in the long run. Even without the collapse of civilization, gold will probably retain its value better than FIAT currency as inflation rises. Right?

Got enough gold? You can make a lot basically renting it out, even for mere hours.

Gold is valuable because vast economic institutions agree that it is valuable. Originally it was favoured because it's pretty, somewhat rare and very difficult to mimic but it may take a while for that sort of thing to become relevant again should everything collapse. If you want to prepare for that sort of event you would be better off getting paid in medical supplies and equipment, camping equipment, clothes, sewing equipment, material to establish farming etc etc.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Got enough gold? You can make a lot basically renting it out, even for mere hours.

True, but years of watching nature documentaries have taught me one thing: our cockroach overlords won't care for gold after the bombs fall


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So just let the guy have his one general election, if he fails, then get rid of him, but until then how does anyone know what people are going to vote like in 4 years, he may have a chance, he may not. But infighting doesn't help anyone.

The problem with that, from the Labour MPs point of view is that they want power and they want it now. I've never been anti Labour, although I've never voted for them, but every time one of them gives an interview at the moment it is all about power. I understand you need to be in a position of power to achieve your objectives, but the manner in which they talk about wanting power is, to me, disturbing.
This is why they aren't prepared to let Corbyn have a run at an election. They believe they'll lose again and not having that power is the worst outcome for them, even worse than splitting the party in to factions.

I'm no Corbyn fan, and I think he's fatally flawed, but I think his policy and principals first approach is the right thing? Why?

Becuase power for its own sake is not going to win Labour elections. They've lost Scotland, they've lost their old industrial heartlands to UKIP, and the boundary changes means that Labour have to win 20-30 more seats to get in power. Never going to happen.

Now, never in a million years will Middle England vote for Corbyn, but, none of the above is the fasting growing political party.

Going after millions of potential voters who don't vote makes more sense thatn going after the 250,000 Middle England voters in swing seats who do vote, but will never vote for you anyway...

Wholes swathes of Britain don't give two hoots for voting or our political parties, the SNP bucking the trend.

Appealing to people, giving them something to believe in, is not a bad strategy IMO.

Worked in Scotland...

Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.

I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.

On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).

I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.

 Ketara wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.

I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.

On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).

That's my main worry. A lot of people chucked a quid at the Labour party to get Corbyn elected as leader, and have had nothing else to do with Labour since. They've not donated any money, time, or effort to the party, and only appear when Corbyn is under fire. It feels less like they're members of the Labour party, and more like they're a Corbyn fan-club who couldn't really care less about the party as a whole. It's great that so many people--especially young people--are active in politics, but the sense of entitlement so many have brought with them, having paid £1 to 'join up', is irritating. Would I feel a bit miffed if it was happening to me? Maybe, but it makes sense that since I only once gave them a quid, and since then have done literally nothing else, that I shouldn't exactly be treated as some sort of valued member. I haven't earned anything even resembling that right.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.

I don't really see how you can suggest that, at all. He is standing by his democratic mandate. He was elected by the membership to do that job and he will continue to do that until the membership vote him out.

That is what political leaders, such as prime ministers, are meant to do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think I would genuinely leave the country if Corbyn got into No.10. This is the sort of guy that would never give up his power as evidence by the shambles that's been going on post-Brexit.

I don't really see how you can suggest that, at all. He is standing by his democratic mandate. He was elected by the membership to do that job and he will continue to do that until the membership vote him out.

That is what political leaders, such as prime ministers, are meant to do.

I see what you're saying. Yes, he was elected by the membership. But if the majority of people who worked for him think he couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, then that doesn't really inspire confidence for running a country, ya know? Non-parliamentary Labour Party members aren't privy to the same level of information as the parliamentary folks.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
Given how people have signed up purely to support Corbyn as a party leader, gathering entire new voters seems much more sensible than competing to fellate right-wingers. Scooping up the previously disenfranchised is kind of a historically obvious thing to do for leftists and usually the whole point.

I agree. That said, I'm torn on the Big Brother approach to politics.

On one hand, I think it's great more people are getting involved, and like the idea of our leaders being picked more democratically. On the flip side of the coin though, I can't help but feel that giving the same weight to a vote by someone who paid the cost of a BB text message as you would a dedicated decades long party activist is somehow wrong. It also feels like it cheapens the (already cheapened) political system further and makes politics more about Blair style smoke and mirrors and celebrity over substance (so party loyalty, ideals, or history).

That's my main worry. A lot of people chucked a quid at the Labour party to get Corbyn elected as leader, and have had nothing else to do with Labour since. They've not donated any money, time, or effort to the party, and only appear when Corbyn is under fire. It feels less like they're members of the Labour party, and more like they're a Corbyn fan-club who couldn't really care less about the party as a whole. It's great that so many people--especially young people--are active in politics, but the sense of entitlement so many have brought with them, having paid £1 to 'join up', is irritating. Would I feel a bit miffed if it was happening to me? Maybe, but it makes sense that since I only once gave them a quid, and since then have done literally nothing else, that I shouldn't exactly be treated as some sort of valued member. I haven't earned anything even resembling that right.

If people care enough to actively join to vote then there's something there that the rest of the party would do well to engage with and nurture. If Corbyn supporters don't engage with the rest of the party then the reason for this has to be investigated. Is it because a lot of the Labour Party doesn't actually do anything for them and Corbyn is an exception? Is it because Corbyn's election is simply a matter they feel they really do have an influence on? Obviously the disenfranchised are a tough audience for a parliamentary party since they by definition don't vote so this may be a limitation of Labour as it currently exists. Swallowing their pride and re-evaluating who exactly they seek support among, who exactly they are for and of, might be the only thing Labour can do to remain relevant as a political force in general.

How to value seniority is one thing to think about, since both of you brought it up. Indeed, any political organisation has reason to be concerned with a sudden influx of new members who want to move in an entirely different direction than the established group. This can subvert or destroy a party (as we're witnessing now!). But does Labour want to be just a party, essentially a hobby club that lets people play power games and get consultation jobs? Or does Labour want to be labour, the sum total of all organised workers in the country? If the former, then no, new members who toss in a coupla quids for a laff shouldn't have the same say as those who've been in the game for decades. If the latter, then yes, a worker is a worker regardless of how long they have been truly aware of this fact.

Rosebuddy wrote:

If people care enough to actively join to vote then there's something there that the rest of the party would do well to engage with and nurture. If Corbyn supporters don't engage with the rest of the party then the reason for this has to be investigated. Is it because a lot of the Labour Party doesn't actually do anything for them and Corbyn is an exception? Is it because Corbyn's election is simply a matter they feel they really do have an influence on? Obviously the disenfranchised are a tough audience for a parliamentary party since they by definition don't vote so this may be a limitation of Labour as it currently exists. Swallowing their pride and re-evaluating who exactly they seek support among, who exactly they are for and of, might be the only thing Labour can do to remain relevant as a political force in general.

I personally (YMMV), think there's a touch of net activism about it. It's like signing petitions on the internet, people like to feel like they can influence affairs from their computer chairs, and £3 was little enough money that actually being able to choose the opposition party leader was too much to resist. I think it was also a protest vote, people are sick of career politicians, so they picked the one that looked least like one (ironically, considering Corbyn is the definition of a career politician).

The problem with such support is that it can melt as fast as it appears. It has no real stake in the Labour party, no actual involvement or dialogue, and no real interest in it.

How to value seniority is one thing to think about, since both of you brought it up. Indeed, any political organisation has reason to be concerned with a sudden influx of new members who want to move in an entirely different direction than the established group. This can subvert or destroy a party (as we're witnessing now!). But does Labour want to be just a party, essentially a hobby club that lets people play power games and get consultation jobs? Or does Labour want to be labour, the sum total of all organised workers in the country? If the former, then no, new members who toss in a coupla quids for a laff shouldn't have the same say as those who've been in the game for decades. If the latter, then yes, a worker is a worker regardless of how long they have been truly aware of this fact.

To be honest, I'm looking more down the line. Past Corbyn, to the Labour a decade hence. Whether Corbyn wins or loses in any election of any kind, the Labour leader will now be decided by a 'Celebrities on Ice' vote. And that sort of system is naturally inclined, in my eyes, to promote the worst excesses we associate with reality TV. The promotion of the outrageous, the showboating and the attention grabbing above substance. Fad voting if you will.

And if that's the case, that means that the activists and politicians of the Labour Party will be expected to change to whatever the person voted in by the mob is championing, regardless of whether or not that's actually what the party they joined and worked for stands for. If something is popular one year, and so you join the party and work your way up on the basis of that principle, you might find it's no longer popular ten years later and people are baying for your deselection.

Alternatively, you might find Tom Hiddleston join Labour and runs for leader and wins regardless of his qualification because enough girls find him pretty.

I just feel it's a really bad system for stability and continuity and good solid governance, y'know?

Bet May really appreciates this.

One supposes there's a slim chance she's using them against each other -- while Parliament is in recess/summer holidays -- so she can get rid of one/both/more with a quick reshuffle, having given them enough rope to hang themselves.

elsewhere




MI 5 eh ?

hmm.. uh huh.

..we get more American by the day

Wow, that's some paranoia right there. If anything, Labour is doing a fine job of destroying itself without help from the outside lol.

I have a somewhat random question about UK politics.

How come Queen Elizabeth's husband isn't the King of England? I was under the impression that marrying a King is how a woman becomes Queen. Doesn't it work the same way if the genders are reversed?

No. Making a Royal Spouse a Monarch in their own right confers onto them a degree of Constitutional power. The way our Constitutional Monarchy is set up, we concentrate that power and status in the Monarch, instead of sharing it out with their spouse. Cuts down on the potential for constitutional crises I suppose.

Imagine the potential crisis if Charles and Camilla had more children together after his first children William and Harry. Philip makes Camilla a Queen, then Philip dies, leaving Camilla on the throne. What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children.

No.

http://www.britroyals.com/faqs.htm

Why is the Queen's husband Prince Philip not King Philip?
The husband of a queen is known as a Prince consort and does not become King. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh. The wife of a king is a Queen consort and does take the title Queen although she does not rule as the monarch. The only exceptions were William III and Mary II who ruled jointly from 1689 until Mary's death in 1694

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_consort

But a King Consort is not the same thing as a King, thats what I'm getting at. Right?

Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D

So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?

What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?

There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.

"No" was to the same poster you were answering

 Pouncey wrote:
Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D

So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?

What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?

There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.

Marrying a King confers the title of Queen, as a Queen consort (assuming the person marrying isn't male, I don't think that's happened before so I don't know what'd happen). Marrying a Queen generally does not confer the title of King, only Prince consort. Probably has something to do with the assumption in old times that a King would be the ruler, so to emphasize that the Queen was a Queen Regnant as opposed to a Queen consort the consort of the Queen was made a "mere" Prince consort.

Charles would then be next, however there is a not-insubstantial movement that Charles should immediately then abdicate and allow William and Kate to rule.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Okies, so marrying a King or Queen does not automatically confer the relevant position. Cool. Thanks. : D

So... When Elizabeth eventually passes, who will become King or Queen then?

What if Camilla got the idea in her head to try to change the line of succession in favour of her own children?

There would be a lot of high-priced lawyers arguing for years, like with every case where the person to receive a hugely important inheritance is in question.

Marrying a King confers the title of Queen, as a Queen consort (assuming the person marrying isn't male, I don't think that's happened before so I don't know what'd happen). Marrying a Queen generally does not confer the title of King, only Prince consort. Probably has something to do with the assumption in old times that a King would be the ruler, so to emphasize that the Queen was a Queen Regnant as opposed to a Queen consort the consort of the Queen was made a "mere" Prince consort.

:: nodnod ::

Side note on the terminology, the USA might have to figure out what to call the husband of a President in a few months, as their President having a husband has never happened before. It'll be especially confusing because in this particular case, that husband will have been a former President himself.

Should be fun times.

Anyways, thanks for answering my random questions, please resume your thread. : D