![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I found this about the most likely route to avoid Boris and Dominic doing a “find the lady” on the rest of us.
Apparently it’s all fairly mechanistic, deterministic and clockwork:
MPs pass the Law blocking No Deal Brexit
Vote of No Confidence immediately called
Johnson demands General Election under Fixed Term Parliaments Act
Vote of No Confidence Passes
Vote for GE rejected, fails to get required two thirds of MPs
MPs select Caretaker PM commanding the support of majority the House
*** Prorogue Intermission ***
Johnson refuses to resign as PM
MPs send Humble Address to Queen
Queen sacks PM
Queen appoints Caretaker PM nominated by MPs
Caretaker PM moves Brexit Date out ahead of any General Election
Caretaker PM calls General Election
Thanks to LucianOfSamosata from the Graun.
Apparently it’s all fairly mechanistic, deterministic and clockwork:
MPs pass the Law blocking No Deal Brexit
Vote of No Confidence immediately called
Johnson demands General Election under Fixed Term Parliaments Act
Vote of No Confidence Passes
Vote for GE rejected, fails to get required two thirds of MPs
MPs select Caretaker PM commanding the support of majority the House
*** Prorogue Intermission ***
Johnson refuses to resign as PM
MPs send Humble Address to Queen
Queen sacks PM
Queen appoints Caretaker PM nominated by MPs
Caretaker PM moves Brexit Date out ahead of any General Election
Caretaker PM calls General Election
Thanks to LucianOfSamosata from the Graun.
And they're off!
Sep. 3rd, 2019 03:25 pmThe new term starts. Bojo now has to cope with rebellions, cross-party alliances and all the razzmatazz that accompanies such high-stakes constitutional gambling.
Having come across as Uncle Benito in a child's Winnie-the-Pooh costume, because Dominic told him he had to be strict-and-stern to stop the nasty splitters splitting, he now has to deal with a temporarily united opposition.
Of course, the Labour party have finally realised that Bojo still holds trump cards: he can be forced to go to the EU and beg for an extension period, but he can veto it too. (It's in the rules that any member can veto an extension and until we leave; Boris has that vote.) He can be forced to hold a general election, but he can always put back the election date to past our leaving date for a perfect fait accompli. His hands can't be tied. And he cannot be trusted. So he has to be forced out and replaced by a government of national unity for the remainder of the Fixed Term Parliament.
And that's not going to happen.
This is going right to the wire.
Having come across as Uncle Benito in a child's Winnie-the-Pooh costume, because Dominic told him he had to be strict-and-stern to stop the nasty splitters splitting, he now has to deal with a temporarily united opposition.
Of course, the Labour party have finally realised that Bojo still holds trump cards: he can be forced to go to the EU and beg for an extension period, but he can veto it too. (It's in the rules that any member can veto an extension and until we leave; Boris has that vote.) He can be forced to hold a general election, but he can always put back the election date to past our leaving date for a perfect fait accompli. His hands can't be tied. And he cannot be trusted. So he has to be forced out and replaced by a government of national unity for the remainder of the Fixed Term Parliament.
And that's not going to happen.
This is going right to the wire.
So it appears to be true...
Aug. 29th, 2019 12:38 pmwww.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2019/08/28/johnson-disregards-history-as-british-forces-readied-to-combat-unrest-in-north-of-ireland/
And it appears that the GFA is toast.
The nightmare continues. After a history between England and Ireland spanning millennia, in the last five hundred or so years the occasional periods of peace have been firstly, hard-won, and after some period tossed aside as irrelevant for reasons of "greater issues".
You bastards. You have sacrificed one of those sustained periods of peace to an ideological insanity.
What can a person do? Shout it from the rooftops? Carry placards? Lie in the bath drinking your best Falernian, conversing with your friends; and opening the vein? Pull the duvet cover over your head?
Decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
And it appears that the GFA is toast.
The nightmare continues. After a history between England and Ireland spanning millennia, in the last five hundred or so years the occasional periods of peace have been firstly, hard-won, and after some period tossed aside as irrelevant for reasons of "greater issues".
You bastards. You have sacrificed one of those sustained periods of peace to an ideological insanity.
What can a person do? Shout it from the rooftops? Carry placards? Lie in the bath drinking your best Falernian, conversing with your friends; and opening the vein? Pull the duvet cover over your head?
Decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/26/brexit-shutting-down-parliament-gravest-abuse-of-power-in-living-memory-legal-advice
They’ve just cottoned on, you know. And Lady Chakrabarti, although Shadow Attorney General, may have a position which she views this from.
Boris can legitimately argue that parliament has already voted to leave under any circumstances on the 31st Oct. The deal is done and dusted. This is what happens when people vote stupidly, whether they are in parliament, or the general population; or those enfranchised thereof.
I guess I’d say to the 52% that you have brought this upon yourselves, and us all. And the sensible minority among us now have to find a way to repair the damage you have caused. But under our breaths we shall curse you. And when misfortune befalls you we will have some secret joy.
But you’ve done your job; all those snowflake lefties, moderates, old-fashioned folk, gun control hypocrites, etc are all so angry that instead of prayers at night, they probably take a poppet made in one of your heroes’ likeness and stick it full of pins, just to make them feel better. Old-fashioned English sympathetic magic? Well I did read about some pagan chaps who were doing whatever it is they do against Boris and his ilk, but I’ve always thought of that sort of thing as the perfect definition of reaching for the impossible. But I can see it being comforting for some, otherwise powerless folk.
You’ve weaponised the peaceniks, how very droll. And Boris as the cat’s paw, that’s even droller.
They’ve just cottoned on, you know. And Lady Chakrabarti, although Shadow Attorney General, may have a position which she views this from.
Boris can legitimately argue that parliament has already voted to leave under any circumstances on the 31st Oct. The deal is done and dusted. This is what happens when people vote stupidly, whether they are in parliament, or the general population; or those enfranchised thereof.
I guess I’d say to the 52% that you have brought this upon yourselves, and us all. And the sensible minority among us now have to find a way to repair the damage you have caused. But under our breaths we shall curse you. And when misfortune befalls you we will have some secret joy.
But you’ve done your job; all those snowflake lefties, moderates, old-fashioned folk, gun control hypocrites, etc are all so angry that instead of prayers at night, they probably take a poppet made in one of your heroes’ likeness and stick it full of pins, just to make them feel better. Old-fashioned English sympathetic magic? Well I did read about some pagan chaps who were doing whatever it is they do against Boris and his ilk, but I’ve always thought of that sort of thing as the perfect definition of reaching for the impossible. But I can see it being comforting for some, otherwise powerless folk.
You’ve weaponised the peaceniks, how very droll. And Boris as the cat’s paw, that’s even droller.
And then we get this...
Aug. 26th, 2019 01:21 pmwww.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/26/boris-johnson-warning-mps-block-no-deal-brexit
I thought we had sorted this out in the Civil War; Parliament is sovereign. Not the government, not the monarch, but Parliament.
Boris is really going to be in a difficult situation if he rides roughshod over Parliament. It may take the speaker to step in, of course, but I think he might just do that.
Bliss.
But at least Bojo gets to capitalise on Cameron and Osborne's Fixed Term Parliament Act and can drag us out of Europe without Parliamentary approval on the idea of a no-deal Brexit.
This is all so shocking it really is like an accidental coup d'état by the stupid and hard of thinking; but led by a scholarship boy who spent his whole life coasting on his intelligence and who never actually worked hard at anything apart from getting his leg over. (I know the breed well, as I am something similar; excepting I have the patience to read and parse the GFA and understand the implications of Brexit without an agreement.)
As for Boris, may I recommend the opening lines to Catullus XVI:
Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo...
Or is that what he's doing to us?
I thought we had sorted this out in the Civil War; Parliament is sovereign. Not the government, not the monarch, but Parliament.
Boris is really going to be in a difficult situation if he rides roughshod over Parliament. It may take the speaker to step in, of course, but I think he might just do that.
Bliss.
But at least Bojo gets to capitalise on Cameron and Osborne's Fixed Term Parliament Act and can drag us out of Europe without Parliamentary approval on the idea of a no-deal Brexit.
This is all so shocking it really is like an accidental coup d'état by the stupid and hard of thinking; but led by a scholarship boy who spent his whole life coasting on his intelligence and who never actually worked hard at anything apart from getting his leg over. (I know the breed well, as I am something similar; excepting I have the patience to read and parse the GFA and understand the implications of Brexit without an agreement.)
As for Boris, may I recommend the opening lines to Catullus XVI:
Pedicabo ego uos et irrumabo...
Or is that what he's doing to us?
...it does rather seem as if it is one he clutches to his manly breast as a totemic good-luck charm. After all, it has gotten him this far.
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/25/britain-can-easily-cope-with-no-deal-brexit-claims-boris-johnson
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill
But let's see what happens.
One thing certainly has to happen with the next government; the repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act. I don't fucking care about party nonsense; we cannot have this constitutional crisis happen again. Cameron and Osborne's brilliant ideas have put us in this mess. The comparisons with Lord North aren't good enough, I'm afraid. Cameron and Osborne have landed us in worse shit than North ever did. North only lost us the US colonies. Cameron and Osborne stitched up the country in order to patch up their party; and I wonder if party before country is one definition of treason through oversight? It's like accidental manslaughter. It's just the body within the lines is in this case our body politic; slain through unforeseen consequences.
If I were Cameron or Osborne I would have hied me to a monastery to live out my life in prayer, hoping for forgiveness.
As is, this has left us with Bojo the Clown as our Premier. Boris has put on a serious face as the odds of no deal have dropped from a million-to-one to touch-and-go as the EU have refused to throw the GFA under a bus. And this is what it is all about. Because Brexit is incompatible with the GFA one has to go, and democratically speaking, the folk in the UK have voted to ditch the GFA after being lied to quite a bit. Including about the GFA and Brexit being compatible.
Boris knows that he will be arming and recruiting the new IRA with these actions. Rees-Mogg knows this too. But I guess their personal advantage must be such that they are prepared to ignore the consequences of their actions for the rest of us.
That's good government for you.
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/25/britain-can-easily-cope-with-no-deal-brexit-claims-boris-johnson
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill
But let's see what happens.
One thing certainly has to happen with the next government; the repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act. I don't fucking care about party nonsense; we cannot have this constitutional crisis happen again. Cameron and Osborne's brilliant ideas have put us in this mess. The comparisons with Lord North aren't good enough, I'm afraid. Cameron and Osborne have landed us in worse shit than North ever did. North only lost us the US colonies. Cameron and Osborne stitched up the country in order to patch up their party; and I wonder if party before country is one definition of treason through oversight? It's like accidental manslaughter. It's just the body within the lines is in this case our body politic; slain through unforeseen consequences.
If I were Cameron or Osborne I would have hied me to a monastery to live out my life in prayer, hoping for forgiveness.
As is, this has left us with Bojo the Clown as our Premier. Boris has put on a serious face as the odds of no deal have dropped from a million-to-one to touch-and-go as the EU have refused to throw the GFA under a bus. And this is what it is all about. Because Brexit is incompatible with the GFA one has to go, and democratically speaking, the folk in the UK have voted to ditch the GFA after being lied to quite a bit. Including about the GFA and Brexit being compatible.
Boris knows that he will be arming and recruiting the new IRA with these actions. Rees-Mogg knows this too. But I guess their personal advantage must be such that they are prepared to ignore the consequences of their actions for the rest of us.
That's good government for you.
Right, Mr Farage...
Aug. 12th, 2019 09:36 amwww.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
Dog-whistle stuff about the Sussexes, Nige.
Personally I think Prince Harry and the Duchess are pretty damn cool. Yes, he's seen action, which is more than you have Nige. So I think he has a right to his opinion. The Prince of Wokeness may be a title to aspire to; though our Nige would never understand that, given that he is forever scurrying around the U-bend of politics to pick up the most racist and right-wing votes. Our Nige in Australia. Poor Oz.
As for calling the Prince of Wales Charlie-boy, well... there is a point where brio, dash, and derring-do descend through chutzpah and into hubris.1
But I'm sure I don't need reminding of that.
As for me, I'm rather fond of the Sussexes. Not that I know them or anything like that; but I do think Harry has been made aware of racism in the way of anyone who marries a person of a different racial background. To further complicate matters Harry has Anglo-Indian blood from his mother's side IIRC; on top of being descended from both the prophet Muhammed and Attila the Hun on his dad's side. I can't remember if his ancestors include Genghis Khan or Abram Gannibal. Much of the Aristocracy can boast of those notables in their ancestry too.
Lord Liverpool was the only mixed-race PM we have had - it appears he was one-eighth Indian; but that particular debate still rages as the data is questionable. William Donaldson mentions that an aunt of his confided in him that every three or four generations, one child would be born black - I assume they were left on a hillside somewhere - which hints at some miscegenation in the family tree. My godfather was the heir to a large silversmith company. His family were originally Jewish folk from the Lowlands who came over to England after Cromwell allowed the Jews to return. They had become Church of England by the time Uncle John went to Winchester; but it took him until his 70's to confide in me that his great great grandmother had been an "octoroon". And even then this was because I'm a mixed hodgepodge of Irish, English, Indian, Portuguese, and Welsh; and haven't regarded that as a problem. Even the Welsh part. :) Also it has been pretty much de rigueur to re-examine the glossed-over parts of our family trees that folk had previously been ashamed of in the certain knowledge that some of the reprobates must have become fashionable by now.
It's a bit like discovering you're a great beauty in your 60's, having been plain-ish for most of your life.
Oh well.
BTW if anyone wants to know what a mixed hodgepodge of Irish, English, Indian, Portuguese, and Welsh looks like...
well here you go:
( Beneath the cut )
I don't often post pictures of myself, but I know what a few of you chaps look like, and I know most of you can't put a face to the opinions. Here in informal mode. Not booted or suited.
1 I'm pleased with the etymological move from French, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and Yiddish to land on Classical Greek, but that's just me. If anyone notices the alliteration it is deliberate. I'm often far too pleased with myself in exceedingly small matters, and hugely displeased in large ones; I suppose at heart I'm a miniaturist.
Dog-whistle stuff about the Sussexes, Nige.
Personally I think Prince Harry and the Duchess are pretty damn cool. Yes, he's seen action, which is more than you have Nige. So I think he has a right to his opinion. The Prince of Wokeness may be a title to aspire to; though our Nige would never understand that, given that he is forever scurrying around the U-bend of politics to pick up the most racist and right-wing votes. Our Nige in Australia. Poor Oz.
As for calling the Prince of Wales Charlie-boy, well... there is a point where brio, dash, and derring-do descend through chutzpah and into hubris.1
But I'm sure I don't need reminding of that.
As for me, I'm rather fond of the Sussexes. Not that I know them or anything like that; but I do think Harry has been made aware of racism in the way of anyone who marries a person of a different racial background. To further complicate matters Harry has Anglo-Indian blood from his mother's side IIRC; on top of being descended from both the prophet Muhammed and Attila the Hun on his dad's side. I can't remember if his ancestors include Genghis Khan or Abram Gannibal. Much of the Aristocracy can boast of those notables in their ancestry too.
Lord Liverpool was the only mixed-race PM we have had - it appears he was one-eighth Indian; but that particular debate still rages as the data is questionable. William Donaldson mentions that an aunt of his confided in him that every three or four generations, one child would be born black - I assume they were left on a hillside somewhere - which hints at some miscegenation in the family tree. My godfather was the heir to a large silversmith company. His family were originally Jewish folk from the Lowlands who came over to England after Cromwell allowed the Jews to return. They had become Church of England by the time Uncle John went to Winchester; but it took him until his 70's to confide in me that his great great grandmother had been an "octoroon". And even then this was because I'm a mixed hodgepodge of Irish, English, Indian, Portuguese, and Welsh; and haven't regarded that as a problem. Even the Welsh part. :) Also it has been pretty much de rigueur to re-examine the glossed-over parts of our family trees that folk had previously been ashamed of in the certain knowledge that some of the reprobates must have become fashionable by now.
It's a bit like discovering you're a great beauty in your 60's, having been plain-ish for most of your life.
Oh well.
BTW if anyone wants to know what a mixed hodgepodge of Irish, English, Indian, Portuguese, and Welsh looks like...
well here you go:
( Beneath the cut )
I don't often post pictures of myself, but I know what a few of you chaps look like, and I know most of you can't put a face to the opinions. Here in informal mode. Not booted or suited.
1 I'm pleased with the etymological move from French, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, and Yiddish to land on Classical Greek, but that's just me. If anyone notices the alliteration it is deliberate. I'm often far too pleased with myself in exceedingly small matters, and hugely displeased in large ones; I suppose at heart I'm a miniaturist.
Have had unintended consequences:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/dominic-cummings-takes-swipe-at-greive-over-confidence-vote-plan
And now neither Cameron or Osborne can fix this mess. Thanks to the Fixed-Term Parliament Act we will now have a guaranteed no-deal Brexit on the 31st October. Even should Boris lose a no-confidence vote he need only call the election to happen after the legally mandated Brexit date has passed.
Boris and chums are still trying to throw the GFA under a bus, however the US Irish caucus may have something to say about that. I know, as I have rellies who are part of that US Irish caucus, and rellies on both sides of the Irish Border, and the family grapevine yields the odd snippets of intent.
The stupid fucking Brexit berserkers don’t seem to have taken the US Irish lobby into account in their blanket dismissal of the New Irish Question. I hope they are prepared to accept the blame when it all goes wrong. Because they will be blamed, both publicly and privately. Here is an analysis from an Irish person on the border.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/northern-ireland-hard-border-brexit-customs
I did hear that the Camerons and Osbornes were snubbed quite a bit after the Brexit vote. I wonder if the authors of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act will feel the same chill social wind?
The UK’s constitutional crisis continues to unfold as predicted. So far each of the points have been reached and ticked. All it needs now is for HM to die and we shall be totally and completely fucked.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/07/dominic-cummings-takes-swipe-at-greive-over-confidence-vote-plan
And now neither Cameron or Osborne can fix this mess. Thanks to the Fixed-Term Parliament Act we will now have a guaranteed no-deal Brexit on the 31st October. Even should Boris lose a no-confidence vote he need only call the election to happen after the legally mandated Brexit date has passed.
Boris and chums are still trying to throw the GFA under a bus, however the US Irish caucus may have something to say about that. I know, as I have rellies who are part of that US Irish caucus, and rellies on both sides of the Irish Border, and the family grapevine yields the odd snippets of intent.
The stupid fucking Brexit berserkers don’t seem to have taken the US Irish lobby into account in their blanket dismissal of the New Irish Question. I hope they are prepared to accept the blame when it all goes wrong. Because they will be blamed, both publicly and privately. Here is an analysis from an Irish person on the border.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/07/northern-ireland-hard-border-brexit-customs
I did hear that the Camerons and Osbornes were snubbed quite a bit after the Brexit vote. I wonder if the authors of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act will feel the same chill social wind?
The UK’s constitutional crisis continues to unfold as predicted. So far each of the points have been reached and ticked. All it needs now is for HM to die and we shall be totally and completely fucked.
And it gets worse...
Jul. 14th, 2019 07:58 amNew leaks...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484
Wherein we find that yet more of Sir Kim's private opinions are being paraded across the press. The fact that those opinions have been held by many folk worldwide is not the point.
But it does seem that the leaker has been identified:
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/14/suspected-leaker-of-kim-darroch-emails-identified-report
And the various heads of the Civil Service are beginning to speak out:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/13/senior-civil-servants-warn-of-campaign-to-undermine-officials
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, one of Darroch’s predecessors as the UK ambassador in Washington, said the leak of emails could have a wider impact on the advice officials are willing to give. “Kim Darroch may have been the immediate target of the leak, but I suspect whoever was behind it has in mind a wider target of our system of public service and wanted to influence the way the next government handled the civil service, and was perhaps trying to influence the succession of Kim Darroch. This undermining of the public service has been going on for years and is clearly going to be a fundamental problem in the period ahead.”
So it seems that we have uncovered the person who leaked this stuff. I suppose an example has to be made pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire mentioned.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48978484
Wherein we find that yet more of Sir Kim's private opinions are being paraded across the press. The fact that those opinions have been held by many folk worldwide is not the point.
But it does seem that the leaker has been identified:
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/14/suspected-leaker-of-kim-darroch-emails-identified-report
And the various heads of the Civil Service are beginning to speak out:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/13/senior-civil-servants-warn-of-campaign-to-undermine-officials
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, one of Darroch’s predecessors as the UK ambassador in Washington, said the leak of emails could have a wider impact on the advice officials are willing to give. “Kim Darroch may have been the immediate target of the leak, but I suspect whoever was behind it has in mind a wider target of our system of public service and wanted to influence the way the next government handled the civil service, and was perhaps trying to influence the succession of Kim Darroch. This undermining of the public service has been going on for years and is clearly going to be a fundamental problem in the period ahead.”
So it seems that we have uncovered the person who leaked this stuff. I suppose an example has to be made pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire mentioned.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/08/donald-trump-we-will-no-longer-deal-with-the-british-ambassador
Someone leaked the British ambassador's private summary of the Trump administration. Now Kim Darroch is toast. Whoever leaked this needs a horsewhipping on the steps of a Pall Mall club. Folk in the clubs in St James' would know better. Or ought to, anyway.
If I were an ambassador for the UK to any nation I would consider this very seriously. Kim Darroch has been compromised; maybe I could be compromised too.
As for me, in my nasty fashion, I think the punishment to the leaker ought to fit the crime, and the likely motivation thereof.
So I think, when we find him, we can sequestrate the assets of the person who leaked this to pay for the bill for the ex-Ambassador's pension and other costs. We can leave aside the costs to British business, industry, and the rags and shreds of its former prestige.
Let's make this society properly capitalist, shall we? The leaker has cost the nation, and therefore should pay for it. Debtor's prisons will be such wonderful places in our new, Dickensian society.
Mind you, it is a bit rich for anyone from the UK to regard any other nation's politics as "inept and dysfunctional". Something about Matthew 7: i-v. springs to mind.
Someone leaked the British ambassador's private summary of the Trump administration. Now Kim Darroch is toast. Whoever leaked this needs a horsewhipping on the steps of a Pall Mall club. Folk in the clubs in St James' would know better. Or ought to, anyway.
If I were an ambassador for the UK to any nation I would consider this very seriously. Kim Darroch has been compromised; maybe I could be compromised too.
As for me, in my nasty fashion, I think the punishment to the leaker ought to fit the crime, and the likely motivation thereof.
So I think, when we find him, we can sequestrate the assets of the person who leaked this to pay for the bill for the ex-Ambassador's pension and other costs. We can leave aside the costs to British business, industry, and the rags and shreds of its former prestige.
Let's make this society properly capitalist, shall we? The leaker has cost the nation, and therefore should pay for it. Debtor's prisons will be such wonderful places in our new, Dickensian society.
Mind you, it is a bit rich for anyone from the UK to regard any other nation's politics as "inept and dysfunctional". Something about Matthew 7: i-v. springs to mind.
Post Corbyn World.
Sep. 24th, 2015 04:13 pmThe news that a senior serving general has opined to the Sunday Times that if Jeremy Corbyn gets elected the army would mutiny does rather give the impression that we in the UK are living in a banana republic rather than a first-world democracy.
Now, given that my ancestors have fought for this country since Waterloo, I should have an opinion on this. So I have.
The thing about democracy is that we accept the will of the electorate. When our present government was elected, I didn't take to the streets and hurl petrol bombs at those I consider to be culpable in electing the present arseholes. Instead I complained in print and in person, and have tried to stop the present crew being re-elected. I did much the same during Bliar's government, though I complained rather less under Brown. But I must reiterate: I did not strike, I did not mutiny, and especially I did not break or forsake an oath to Her Majesty the Queen.
If the army, or any portion of it, should do these things after a general election, I hope the folk concerned are charged with treason. Because that is what it is. If it comes down to parliament, representing the will of the people, and the army, representing certain interests outside the democratic process, like money for example, then the army is positioning itself as the British equivalent of some South American Junta funded by CIA drug dealing. (Also, I think many of the Scots and Welsh regiments may well side with parliament...so that means civil war: the army against the people and the Celtic regiments.)
Bizarre that the Chiefs-of-Staff should let the bounder get away with saying this sort of hogswash. Early retirement, I reckon.
Now, given that my ancestors have fought for this country since Waterloo, I should have an opinion on this. So I have.
The thing about democracy is that we accept the will of the electorate. When our present government was elected, I didn't take to the streets and hurl petrol bombs at those I consider to be culpable in electing the present arseholes. Instead I complained in print and in person, and have tried to stop the present crew being re-elected. I did much the same during Bliar's government, though I complained rather less under Brown. But I must reiterate: I did not strike, I did not mutiny, and especially I did not break or forsake an oath to Her Majesty the Queen.
If the army, or any portion of it, should do these things after a general election, I hope the folk concerned are charged with treason. Because that is what it is. If it comes down to parliament, representing the will of the people, and the army, representing certain interests outside the democratic process, like money for example, then the army is positioning itself as the British equivalent of some South American Junta funded by CIA drug dealing. (Also, I think many of the Scots and Welsh regiments may well side with parliament...so that means civil war: the army against the people and the Celtic regiments.)
Bizarre that the Chiefs-of-Staff should let the bounder get away with saying this sort of hogswash. Early retirement, I reckon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-defense-of-reinhart-and-rogoffs-flawed-debt-study-2013-4
From the Business Insider, a short piece by joe-weisenthal.
Where he quotes Paul Krugman
"As Paul Krugman states in one of his (several) posts on the Reinhart/Rogoff issue: "the larger story is the evident urge of Very Serious People to find excuses for inflicting pain."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-defense-of-reinhart-and-rogoffs-flawed-debt-study-2013-4#ixzz2QuhME9cL
From the Business Insider, a short piece by joe-weisenthal.
Where he quotes Paul Krugman
"As Paul Krugman states in one of his (several) posts on the Reinhart/Rogoff issue: "the larger story is the evident urge of Very Serious People to find excuses for inflicting pain."
This impulse, to show your seriousness by promoting pain, is the real overriding drive behind austerity, not an academic study.
For example after Obama publicly embraced a "chained CPI" (a form of Social Security cut). Economist Dean Baker told Business Insider: "You piss on the people who care about Social Security, then you're serious."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-defense-of-reinhart-and-rogoffs-flawed-debt-study-2013-4#ixzz2QuhME9cL
...and I shall not recapitulate for the inattentive.
To continue, yesterday, chillaxing Dave got on the case and stated something along the lines of, "Well, even though events have proven me wrong, I was right to put pro-Murdoch crony JeremyBerkHunt in charge of the bid that Murdoch's proxies were making to buy the remaining portion of BSkyB."
Jeremy Hunt's email has been published by Leveson, wherein he shows at least as much positive bias towards Murdoch as Vince Cable showed negative.
Now what I want to know is of these two,BerkHunt and Cable, which would the ordinary informed person think of as the most likely to follow the proper process of examining the bid, and the fitness of the folk who were making it, and referring it to the proper agencies of oversight?
As we now all know (as though we hadn't before) that Murdoch's organisation has more than a few dodgy folk therein, and some of its ways are not like the ways of other law-abiding citizens; perhaps because, as article of faith, it always has to test and thereby prove the limits of legal jurisdiction, whilst remaining within the law; even when that law interferes with what Murdoch regards as the natural fulfilment of his stage of media-empire building. Laws can be changed, after all. Processes can beevaded avoided.
Given this, I should find it surprising, and an actual dereliction of political duty from all sides of the political spectrum, for a politician to give Murdoch's organisation or any cross-media organisation an easy ride. Even those sympathetic to Murdoch's modus operandi, fellow travellers of the libertarian/new right/newconservative inclination, even they should be naturally wary of the media-mogul/newspaper-baron, given the media baron's nature.
I mean to say, look at some of the modern list:
Robert Maxwell
Conrad Black
Silvio Berlusconi
Actually Silvio deserves a couple of pages to him: so I'll throw in another link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_allegations_involving_Silvio_Berlusconi
and
Rupert Murdoch
Now, in the general population one wouldn't expect to find as many criminals* per capita, and I doubt there are anything more than a hundred actual media moguls of the stature of the above named quartet in the modern era, so I should find it unsurprising if any media mogul was ever given an easy ride. Call it profiling, I suppose. We have to remember, in the era of the Nietzschean man, companies are people too.
I'm just surprised that thesefolk companies don't get stop-and-searched a bit more, just on sus. I mean, if there were a gang as obviously dodgy as this crew outside, waiting to be let in, we'd have our border guards give 'em an intensive body-frisk or two before we allowed 'em into civilisation. And even then, some of us would be trying to get 'em all deported.
*Not, of course, that Murdoch is a deliberate criminal - in such cases it takes a noble journalist to step up to the plate, rather than a proprietor.
To continue, yesterday, chillaxing Dave got on the case and stated something along the lines of, "Well, even though events have proven me wrong, I was right to put pro-Murdoch crony Jeremy
Jeremy Hunt's email has been published by Leveson, wherein he shows at least as much positive bias towards Murdoch as Vince Cable showed negative.
Now what I want to know is of these two,
As we now all know (as though we hadn't before) that Murdoch's organisation has more than a few dodgy folk therein, and some of its ways are not like the ways of other law-abiding citizens; perhaps because, as article of faith, it always has to test and thereby prove the limits of legal jurisdiction, whilst remaining within the law; even when that law interferes with what Murdoch regards as the natural fulfilment of his stage of media-empire building. Laws can be changed, after all. Processes can be
Given this, I should find it surprising, and an actual dereliction of political duty from all sides of the political spectrum, for a politician to give Murdoch's organisation or any cross-media organisation an easy ride. Even those sympathetic to Murdoch's modus operandi, fellow travellers of the libertarian/new right/newconservative inclination, even they should be naturally wary of the media-mogul/newspaper-baron, given the media baron's nature.
I mean to say, look at some of the modern list:
Robert Maxwell
Conrad Black
Silvio Berlusconi
Actually Silvio deserves a couple of pages to him: so I'll throw in another link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_allegations_involving_Silvio_Berlusconi
and
Rupert Murdoch
Now, in the general population one wouldn't expect to find as many criminals* per capita, and I doubt there are anything more than a hundred actual media moguls of the stature of the above named quartet in the modern era, so I should find it unsurprising if any media mogul was ever given an easy ride. Call it profiling, I suppose. We have to remember, in the era of the Nietzschean man, companies are people too.
I'm just surprised that these
*Not, of course, that Murdoch is a deliberate criminal - in such cases it takes a noble journalist to step up to the plate, rather than a proprietor.
The warp and weft of England
Jan. 12th, 2011 01:10 pmOver the past couple of years I've called for the rich to be taxed more.
I still feel this. And to a great extent this is about my opinion of social cohesion in Britain. But I also feel that those who invest in the culture and the traditions of England should be given some tax advantages which may offset tax.
For example: there are some 2500 Grade I listed houses in England and Wales which are homes to people. These houses cost a prohibitive amount to maintain, but are part of the warp and weft of English and Welsh culture: they are part of the heritage of Britain, and often, so are the families that occupy them.
When something goes wrong with a Grade I listed building you can't just call in your local handyman to fix things. If a stone falls from an arch, a master mason must replace it like for like, and then the repair must be passed by an inspector from the relevant authority. This costs money. Upgrades in heating systems must first have permission, and then approval of work done. Glazing must comply to listed building regulations and be approved. Even changing the furnishings can require a committee to accept the changes wrought. These houses are a huge drain on the resources of even the richest of individuals. Ergo, if someone buys or inherits a great house then it is quite likely that they will spend most of their time and a whole heap of money just in its upkeep.
If a company or organisation owns a listed building, it has to pass the same stringent requirements as the individuals who own listed houses.
Of course, for Grade II listed buildings the regulations aren't quite as severe, but they are still so far removed from the ordinary experience of building owners as to make buying or investing in a listed building fraught with inconvenience and cost.
This is as it should be: these buildings are part of our heritage, and more often than not of great architectural importance and beauty.
I'm in favour of tax breaks for those folk or organisations who own these money pits. In some cases, considerable tax breaks, especially for individuals or families who may own or inherit such 'piles'. I'd rather see a family who have owned a house for umpteen generations retain ownership of a stately home, than see some faceless organisation turn the thing into a golf course or business conference centre: but also, if that's not possible I'd rather the organisation which owns it to be held to some standards of upkeep and maintenance, given that such an organisation is now caretaker of a piece of British heritage. But I think that acknowledging the expense of the upkeep of our heritage should be reflected in our tax system.
I still feel this. And to a great extent this is about my opinion of social cohesion in Britain. But I also feel that those who invest in the culture and the traditions of England should be given some tax advantages which may offset tax.
For example: there are some 2500 Grade I listed houses in England and Wales which are homes to people. These houses cost a prohibitive amount to maintain, but are part of the warp and weft of English and Welsh culture: they are part of the heritage of Britain, and often, so are the families that occupy them.
When something goes wrong with a Grade I listed building you can't just call in your local handyman to fix things. If a stone falls from an arch, a master mason must replace it like for like, and then the repair must be passed by an inspector from the relevant authority. This costs money. Upgrades in heating systems must first have permission, and then approval of work done. Glazing must comply to listed building regulations and be approved. Even changing the furnishings can require a committee to accept the changes wrought. These houses are a huge drain on the resources of even the richest of individuals. Ergo, if someone buys or inherits a great house then it is quite likely that they will spend most of their time and a whole heap of money just in its upkeep.
If a company or organisation owns a listed building, it has to pass the same stringent requirements as the individuals who own listed houses.
Of course, for Grade II listed buildings the regulations aren't quite as severe, but they are still so far removed from the ordinary experience of building owners as to make buying or investing in a listed building fraught with inconvenience and cost.
This is as it should be: these buildings are part of our heritage, and more often than not of great architectural importance and beauty.
I'm in favour of tax breaks for those folk or organisations who own these money pits. In some cases, considerable tax breaks, especially for individuals or families who may own or inherit such 'piles'. I'd rather see a family who have owned a house for umpteen generations retain ownership of a stately home, than see some faceless organisation turn the thing into a golf course or business conference centre: but also, if that's not possible I'd rather the organisation which owns it to be held to some standards of upkeep and maintenance, given that such an organisation is now caretaker of a piece of British heritage. But I think that acknowledging the expense of the upkeep of our heritage should be reflected in our tax system.
Stupid is as stupid does....
Jan. 7th, 2011 11:19 amSo this morning I wake up to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12132341
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/07/mps-committee-bonfire-quangos-botched
And I realised that the people of this country get the government they deserve. This criticism of the Government comes from a Tory-led Commons public administration select committee. And just to go into details....
I quote from Paul Odtaa who comments on the Guardian story:
"One stupid decision was the scrapping of the small quango, Sitpro, Simplification International Trade. This organisation very quietly became the world leader in getting all countries in agreeing standards in processing the paperwork to allow international trade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12132341
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/07/mps-committee-bonfire-quangos-botched
And I realised that the people of this country get the government they deserve. This criticism of the Government comes from a Tory-led Commons public administration select committee. And just to go into details....
I quote from Paul Odtaa who comments on the Guardian story:
"One stupid decision was the scrapping of the small quango, Sitpro, Simplification International Trade. This organisation very quietly became the world leader in getting all countries in agreeing standards in processing the paperwork to allow international trade.
They were able to get say Russia, during the Cold War, and China, during the conflict over Hong Kong, to agree to sign treaties.
With the advent of terrorism the Sitpro expertise would help draw up procedures to recognise cargo from safe sources, eg a container loaded directly in a factory, and those cargoes that may need further scrutiny.
By absorbing the quango into the Board of Trade we would have already lost many of its staff to industry.
The decision would have seriously damaged the image of Britain within the world trade community.
The training Sitpro used to do will be lost. This will be made up by commercial organisations which will be very variable.
Whatever happens British industry will lose tens of millions of pounds as trade is slowed due to security considerations."
As an aside, I have read that Barnet Council, so beloved of the Tories, has spent £1.5M on saving £1.4M. Well, that's all right then.
Thank the gods that the British people en masse are a bunch of stupid imbeciles when it comes to voting for governments. Simple prejudices are definitely the way to exploit a sense of unease and worry, and simple solutions to complicated problems are always vote-winning, even if they don't work, are inefficient, and return us to a Dickensian society of abject poverty for the majority. Never mind, the stupid folk have only themselves to blame: the clever ones will no doubt find a way to exploit the idiots.
I was going to find me some snake-oil to sell to the British voters....but then I realised that Rupert had got there first.
(no subject)
Oct. 4th, 2010 12:24 pmIt does rather seem that Little Gideon has got something almost right:
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-scrapped-high-earners
Some maths still to do re one partner earning over the tax threshold, and the other not coming close. Combined incomes in two parent households might be a better starting point, but what the hell: it's a beginning.
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/child-benefit-scrapped-high-earners
Some maths still to do re one partner earning over the tax threshold, and the other not coming close. Combined incomes in two parent households might be a better starting point, but what the hell: it's a beginning.
(no subject)
Apr. 16th, 2010 05:08 pmIt has been well over two weeks since my last post and ennui still leaves me with little to say.
Cameron, Clegg, Brown....bored.
Nevertheless, the degree of hatred that Brown seems to inspire in some folk is beyond my understanding, but leaves me with the feeling that if British folk can't actually determine facts and context from the last few years they deserve what they get: it won't really bother me much, as I'm all right, thank you very much. My income is private and determined by London rental prices, and SWMBO is....in the very top percent of earners. I don't have to waste my time arguing for even limited social justice if it means spending all of my time arguing with either idiots, the delusional, or those blinded by what appears to be an unjustified hatred. It no longer amuses me, and I will admit to having little time as I'm writing again.
Anyway, back to the boring election. John_Sergeant's analysis after the first 'debate' was that Clegg had won the personality prize, and Brown had won the political debate, and poor old Cameron hadn't actually done too well. The polls done immediately after the event however don't reflect this.
I'm sure I'll be personally much better off under Dave's incoming government for the wealthy: how much guilt about this I'll feel all rather depends on the electorate. I love the idea of some impoverished right-wing folk voting to keep me and mine in a luxury which they will hardly manage to reward themselves with after a lifetime's hard labour. It's too too wonderful, my dears. Another crate of Bollinger, please garçon. And please send someone with a taper to light my cigar. Thanks.
Cameron, Clegg, Brown....bored.
Nevertheless, the degree of hatred that Brown seems to inspire in some folk is beyond my understanding, but leaves me with the feeling that if British folk can't actually determine facts and context from the last few years they deserve what they get: it won't really bother me much, as I'm all right, thank you very much. My income is private and determined by London rental prices, and SWMBO is....in the very top percent of earners. I don't have to waste my time arguing for even limited social justice if it means spending all of my time arguing with either idiots, the delusional, or those blinded by what appears to be an unjustified hatred. It no longer amuses me, and I will admit to having little time as I'm writing again.
Anyway, back to the boring election. John_Sergeant's analysis after the first 'debate' was that Clegg had won the personality prize, and Brown had won the political debate, and poor old Cameron hadn't actually done too well. The polls done immediately after the event however don't reflect this.
I'm sure I'll be personally much better off under Dave's incoming government for the wealthy: how much guilt about this I'll feel all rather depends on the electorate. I love the idea of some impoverished right-wing folk voting to keep me and mine in a luxury which they will hardly manage to reward themselves with after a lifetime's hard labour. It's too too wonderful, my dears. Another crate of Bollinger, please garçon. And please send someone with a taper to light my cigar. Thanks.
Rubbish & rants, etc...(UK centric)....
Mar. 1st, 2010 06:33 pmSo in preparation for my descent into rhetoric I've been searching out my old Auberon Waugh compendia. Most of Waugh's insults are so politically incorrect that they are almost impossible to repeat in this day and age. "....resembling a typical plumber with a cleft palate who has lost his dentures down the u-bend...." etc is offensive to so many people, be they plumbers or folk with cleft palates, or merely the parents or relatives of plumbers or the craniofacially challenged. Or even those with dentures, I suppose.
Gearing up to be offensive on purpose is not my regular modus operandi: so I've taken it upon myself to refresh my memory with the works of the masters.
Rheinhold Aman is yer man, of course. Normally, only the right-of-centre descend to obloquy, even of an heightened form. Both Waugh and Aman are/were pretty right-wing, but if folk mess with my stuff....my culture....well, I'd hope for the odd bit of support from the rest of the folk who are in some way beholden to the BBC for many of their media pleasures. If they think Radio 3 or 4 (or even Radio 6) could be replaced by commercial stations, then I think them living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.
I'm also of the opinion that if any individual wants to be able to stand for Parliament, he or she should be resident in the UK for tax purposes. We may not be governed by absentee non-taxpayers who will not have to conform with laws they draft or assist in passing.
Ashcroft (or as another example, Lord Paul on the Labour side) can give whatever monies he likes to charities, political parties, or political advertising: if he is not resident in the UK for tax purposes, then he should not be eligible for any public office, let alone any office of state. And this tax-residency should not be contingent upon office, rather the other way around: a candidate should not be considered unless he or she has a minimal qualifying period of paying tax. Perhaps five years would mean they have actually paid their way and have a proven stake in UK PLC. I might also agree to a five year residency period before any welfare qualification. The newspapers go on and on about scroungers coming over here to get welfare: I'm just as worried about tax-exiles instructing the rest of us about how much tax we should pay, and for what.
Cameron has to get his act together rather better if he wants to present himself as both rescuer of the UK from Brown's 'mismanagement', and some sort of patriot spanning the classes: Dave should have got on Ashcroft's case much earlier. As is, now he may have to get mediæval on Ashcroft's ass, as the saying is: well either that, or appear that he condones the sort of feathering of nests that Ashcroft's non-dom circumstances have allowed.
The upper classes, don't you just love the way they manage to find ways around paying the same taxes as the rest of us ordinary folk? (Though it must be said, by birth and some attitudes I suppose I am vulnerable to at least an oblique accusation of being a member of the upper classes.)
