*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[Poopadoop]

Blah blah blah

So the fact is you don't know of any laws you were hoping to repeal (which was a bunch of trade laws, it turns out), just that you wanted your sovereignty. Ok, cool.

[OngBonga]

Finally you're beginning to understand nationalism.

The Scottish are willing to destroy their economy to get rid of nukes. Good for them.

[Poopadoop]

Finally you're beginning to understand nationalism.

Nationalism = thoughtless flag-shagging. Got it.

[OngBonga]

What about all the other parts of the country who voted Remain?

Remember I'm a nationalist, not a countyist or a townist or a houseist.

The nation is the limit of democratic freedom for me. Democracy is not perfect, it's just the best system we have, and all democracies are not equal, some are more democratic than others.

UK democracy is an excellent example of how it's not perfect, far from it. We're a union of nations, so the largest nation politically dominates the smaller nations, causing problems. Are those problems worth it? Probably, but that's easy for me to say coming from the politically dominant side. However, we're culturally close enough that a political union can work, and has worked for a long time.

That isn't true of Europe. We're not culturally similar, we have different languages and different ways of life. We have common values which makes us allies and economic partners, but we don't have a common culture. So it's much harder for a political union to work in the interests of everyone.

I've always said I'm in favour of economic integration, just not political. We work as partners. But when they're setting the terms in which we can trade, when they're setting the trade laws that apply in the UK, that is political dominance.

Is economics worth more than sovereignty? I don't think so, you do.

Nationalism = thoughtless flag-shagging. Got it.

Oh wait, no you don't understand nationalism at all. You just see the worst of it and assume that's what it is.

Well, by your logic you must think everyone called Adolf is an evil dictator.

[OngBonga]

Here's a question poop - do you think the whole world should learn English?

I mean, it would make economic sense for that to happen, and who cares about national identity and culture? Different languages around the world act as a huge barrier for political and economic integration.

If you think nationalism is a joke, then surely language is a problem that needs solving for the economic benefit of everyone, right?

[Poopadoop]

Different languages around the world act as a huge barrier for political and economic integration.

The biggest barrier to trade is not language, it's law. The fact that we've made trading with the EU harder without changing the language we use one jot is evidence of that.


Not really clear to me why we would want political integration beyond that which facilitates peaceful relations and trade, or that such integration relies on a common language. I can barely understand half of the people in Scotland and yet we live in the same country.

If you think nationalism is a joke

I don't think it's a joke, I just don't see it as a reason to put up unnecessary trade barriers with countries that want to trade with us.

[OngBonga]

Most nationalists in England don't give a shit about the flag. I have precisely zero flags on display in my house. Go to USA and Canada and you'll see them everywhere. They love flags over there.

I don't have an inflated sense of pride relating to the nation of England. That's not what it's about. I don't think we should rule ourselves because we're better than others. It's because I believe it's the optimal form of democracy for large populations.

As a nationalist, I respect all nations and their desire for self rule. Including Scotland.

So no it's not flag shagging, and it's not even racism or xenophobia. It's a cultural identity and a desire to not be politically dominated by foreign powers.

[CoccoBill]

A common language for all would be quite handy. They tried that with Esperanto but I think English has been more successful so far. Maybe Mandarin in the future.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a question for you Ong: If nationalism is such an overwhelming force in politics, why do you think the other 27 members of the EU joined up with each other and have stayed together for so long?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I sometimes get the sense that ong wants to pause time and lock current cultures and peoples in place and empower them to have the right to keep it all that way.

I say this with love, ongie m'boy, it sounds ridiculous and even kinda mean spirited and I don't get it.

Culture is dynamic - constantly moving, evolving, adapting, embracing and rejecting - it is not the same today as it was a year ago, a decade ago, a century ago.

I sometimes feel like ong doesn't agree with me on that last sentence, but I can't figure out how.
Help me out, buddy?


Mostly, people don't move that far from where they were born. A small %-age of people ever want to do that. Mostly that happens when those people are persecuted or in harm's way. Only a small %-age of a small %-age of people have nefarious intent.

It has always been that way. England - Angle-land was created in its current form by various waves of migration and conquerors. I don't understand why ong wants to pause the time "now," you see. Why not pre-Roman invasion? Why not pre-Viking? Why now? Other than the happenstance of history that you personally remember the recent past.

How can you not acknowledge that British culture of the recent past is not the same as British culture of today?

How could pausing any culture to stop adapting and evolving ever be to their advantage?!?!

[OngBonga]

I sometimes get the sense that ong wants to pause time and lock current cultures and peoples in place and empower them to have the right to keep it all that way.

It's not about "pausing time". I don't want us to go back to horses and carts. Culture changes, largely thanks to technology, but also due to other forces such as cultural integration. That's not something I consider a bad thing.

But there are tons of cultural traits around the world that should be cherished and preserved. Language is one such example. Even though using the same language around the world would have huge economic benefits, it would be a huge human loss.

Music is another example. Should we associate reggae with Jamaica? Or just humans? They're proud of what they've given to the world of music, why take that away from them and say "this isn't yours, it doesn't belong to a nation or a group of people, it belongs to the world, to humans". Art, archaeology, education, there are so many things that can be considered "culture", that we should seek to preserve through love of history and love of the journey that our species is taking.

Culture is dynamic - constantly moving, evolving, adapting, embracing and rejecting - it is not the same today as it was a year ago, a decade ago, a century ago.


I sometimes feel like ong doesn't agree with me on that last sentence, but I can't figure out how.
Help me out, buddy?

Some cultural traits and identities are dynamic, others not so much. Language being the most obvious one that is almost static. You can't just say "culture is dynamic" and think that means any more than saying "planets move". Yes, but they remain the same planets, even if some things about that planet might have changed.

I don't understand why ong wants to pause the time "now"

I don't. I just also don't want to see nations of people, that is people who have a historical identity, whether that be English, Icelandic, whatever, lose that identity. This is not about preserving culture forever exactly as it is now, or any specific time in history, but celebrating what makes us different without it being about what makes us better.

You can say that "Icelandic" means nothing more than "a human born in Iceland" if you want, but I don't agree. If that were true, they would be identical to the English in every way except their place of birth. They are not. So being Icelandic means something more. Should we seek to destroy that distinction, or celebrate it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

But there are tons of cultural traits around the world that should be cherished and preserved. Language is one such example. Even though using the same language around the world would have huge economic benefits, it would be a huge human loss.

The languages of today are the product of past languages diverging, combining, and just slowly being made up anew along the way.
The word literally has changed to mean its own antonym in our lifetimes.
The English language more than most incorporates words from other languages all over the world as its own.

To butt into the other conversation a bit... pidgin languages pop up all the time when people who don't speak a common language need to assemble some minimal overlap from each language to facilitate trade. There is much evidence of this happening throughout history all over the world. While language is needed, financial profit is a strong motivator to get some basics established.

Music is another example. Should we associate reggae with Jamaica? Or just humans?

I guess that depends on whether or not we're talking to another human..?
To a Martian, it's all human music.
lol

I think there's rich value in understanding the history of cultural elements, like knowing reggae music comes from Jamaica, but the first paragraph on the wiki page for reggae music describes the musical styles it was influenced by and combined to become its own thing. It was a style of music that integrated very American musical sensibilities (Jazz and R&B) with local beats and sounds (mento).

So by your argument, really, reggae is (US) American music? It's not traditional Jamaican music, after all. (I mean, it's definitely a post-Beatles thing.)
No, of course not. The power and influence of that combination became its own thing. It became Jamaican culture less than 100 years ago.

By your argument, should we have kept the American music out of Jamaica so that traditional Jamaican music would not be lost?
But ... isn't that the people in Jamaica's choice?
Isn't the culmination of each individual's sovereignty over what they choose what culture is?

And isn't that grand total of a people's subjective whims necessarily extremely dynamic?

Right?
Like, you see where I'm coming from, here?

Some cultural traits and identities are dynamic, others not so much. Language being the most obvious one that is almost static.

-.-
Old English -> Middle English -> Modern English -> 'Murican
*dab*

This is not about preserving culture forever exactly as it is now, or any specific time in history, but celebrating what makes us different without it being about what makes us better.

Is it? 'Cause it sounds like telling people they can't change and grow and learn what they like best from all they encounter.

So being Icelandic means something more. Should we seek to destroy that distinction, or celebrate it?

Celebrating it and preserving it are different things.
Celebrating what it is, how its history got it here, and celebrating where it goes is all good, IMO.

Arguing that something besides the collective choices of people who live there / was born there / [I'm not drawing a hard line about who gets to call themselves Icelandic or whatever] seems bogus, IMO. People born in Iceland today are growing up in a different world than people born in Iceland a decade ago. Those kids are going to grow and change and learn and do whatever it is they do. That's what's going to be Icelandic culture in the future. Not what it is today. Not what it was a decade ago. It will be what it becomes based on nothing that can be rigidly controlled.

[OngBonga]

The biggest barrier to trade is not language, it's law.

Law can be changed at the swipe of a pen. Language can't.

The fact that we've made trading with the EU harder without changing the language we use one jot is evidence of that.

We've also made it easier, in theory, to trade with the rest of the world. Don't forget that. The EU wouldn't let us arrange trade deals that don't involve them. So what, sacrifice the rest of the world to make trading with the EU easier? That's not so bad if that decision can be challenged at elections, and changed at the swipe of a pen, instead of a once-in-a-generation debate and referendum. But it's crazy to think any member state can just go in and out of the bloc at will. In order to streamline trade with Europe, we have to sign up for decades and accept their trade laws. That's what it means to give up sovereignty, and that's what nationalists, and others, have a problem with.

Here's a question for you Ong: If nationalism is such an overwhelming force in politics, why do you think the other 27 members of the EU joined up with each other and have stayed together for so long?

It is an overwhelming force in politics in many places, and those places are questioning their membership.

They have stayed together for so long for a multitude of reasons. For small countries, the trade and freedom-of-movement benefits are so huge that they consider it worth giving up the sovereignty. But it's not so cohesive as you're making out here. Serbia, Hungary, Italy, Greece, you've got important countries here who might not be member states in 10 or 20 years. Or maybe they will be, and if so, it'll be because they consider it worth it.

The UK democratically decided it wasn't worth it. I doubt very much we'll be the only one that makes that decision during the life of the EU.

[Poopadoop]

Law can be changed at the swipe of a pen. Language can't.

Poetic, but has nothing to do with the point I was arguing.

in theory,

Right, so where's all these great new trade deals we were promised?

So what, sacrifice the rest of the world to make trading with the EU easier?

That's not how it worked, for two reasons. First, we weren't just a passive satellite member of the EU having trade deals we were made to follow, we had a say in which trade deals were arranged. As one of Big Three, we had a very big say in fact.

Second, we had better trade deals with the rest of the world than we do now, AND we had free trade with the EU. We were in the EU, getting all the benefits of being in the largest trading bloc in the world with a lot of weight behind it. That's what makes for good trade deals, not that you can act independently to buy lamb from NZ and w/e the fuck other trade deals they've managed to accomplish now we've got our sovereignty back.

In order to streamline trade with Europe, we have to sign up for decades and accept their trade laws. That's what it means to give up sovereignty, and that's what nationalists, and others, have a problem with.

Yup, why be a major part of the world's biggest trading bloc when we can arrange our own little side deals with countries halfway around the world, like (checks notes), the deal with Australia that's forecast to net us (checks notes), a long-term 0.4% boost to GDP. In other words, we only need another 99 deals like that and we'll make up for what we've lost by leaving the EU.

It is an overwhelming force in politics in many places, and those places are questioning their membership.

Put down the Brexit koolaid for a minute, you're not going to like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...c-since-brexit

[OngBonga]

I say that but if the EU did fail, inevitably I would have at least some smug satisfaction, so long as they weren't fighting anyway.

[OngBonga]

Right, so where's all these great new trade deals we were promised?

I'm sorry that you were unable to understand the context of "in theory".

Usually that term is used to imply that it's not happening in practise, but it could/should.

As one of Big Three, we had a very big say in fact.

Sure. Which, I might add, is wholly unfair on all the "lesser" member states who were almost entirely at the economic mercy of Germany, France and the UK.

But still, even as a major player, we were still at the mercy of Germany and France. That is, if they so chose to, they could work together for their bilateral interests and against ours. It doesn't even matter if they were or were not doing this, the fact our economy is vulnerable to two major European countries, one of which we were at war with less than a century ago, and the other two centuries, is not an acceptable situation for people who value sovereignty.

Second, we had better trade deals with the rest of the world than we do now...

Then this is down to the incompetence of the government. At least it's our government being incompetent and we can change them. That is the whole point of democratic control. Whether we use that democratic control wisely is another matter.

Put down the Brexit koolaid for a minute, you're not going to like this.

lol graduian

I don't care to read the opinion and likely-biased poll a pro-EU left wing news agency is publishing. I'll just say I don't even care it it works for them or not, if they leave or stay, it's not my business if Serbia or wherever remains or leaves. I don't want the EU to fail just to give myself a smug sense of satisfaction. If they want to have a superstate, good luck with that.

[Poopadoop]

I'm sorry that you were unable to understand the context of "in theory".

Usually that term is used to imply that it's not happening in practise, but it could/should.

Right, it ***could*** happen. But it hasn't. And it won't. Because it's bullshit.

Which, I might add, is wholly unfair on all the "lesser" member states who were almost entirely at the economic mercy of Germany, France and the UK.

Not if they benefit as well from the overall scheme. Which apparently most of them feel they do, as they're in the EU.

But still, even as a major player, we were still at the mercy of Germany and France. That is, if they so chose to, they could work together for their bilateral interests and against ours.

lol, so rather than wait for some hypothetical Franco-German economic alliance to form against us, we decided to force them into one by default, by leaving the EU. Brilliant.

It doesn't even matter if they were or were not doing this, the fact our economy is vulnerable to two major European countries,

You're right, we're in a much stronger position now. We hold all the cards lol.

one of which we were at war with less than a century ago, and the other two centuries,

And both of which have been at war with each other over the same period lol.

Then this is down to the incompetence of the government. At least it's our government being incompetent and we can change them. That is the whole point of democratic control. Whether we use that democratic control wisely is another matter.

No, it's down to the face that we threw away all the leverage we had as part of a trading bloc. That's why trading blocs exist.

When we have a Labour gov't they'll be more competent than the current shower in all sorts of ways. Making tiny trade deals with faraway small economies won't be on their list of priorities, because they're not trying to sell us unicorn Brexit "benefits."

lol graduian

yeah i know, you prefer to believe all the unicorn promises and MEGA propaganda instead of actual data.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I am honestly surprised that you both have managed to have the same argument over Brexit for nearly 4 years running.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thanks to this convo, I know now ska music is also Jamaican in origin.
First I heard of it was prob. the Mighty Mighty Boss Tones and Reel Big Fish in the 90's.
Later, Sublime, which is still bangin'.

I was in high school at the time and didn't really think about stuff like this.

Ska came out of WWII era stuff like radio spreading music from the southern US to Jamaica. American soldiers had records that found their way around the island.

It was very much a sudden cultural shift, fueled by new tech, that broadened the communication horizons of the Jamaican people.

Then the darn kids went and made rock music.

[OngBonga]

Jamaican ska...

[OngBonga]

I mean I know it has its roots in American jazz and R&B but this is a distinctly Jamaican sound, and very much 1960s sound at that. This is Jamaican culture and always will be.

[OngBonga]

Here's an old Jamaican man doing ska...

[OngBonga]

Max Romeo is more famed for his reggae, I've seen him twice. Absolutely wonderful. He's still plodding on, saw him last in summer 2022 (when I went to France).

Don Drummond (that first beautiful piece of music) was a convicted killer and died in prison. He was a founding member of the Skatalites, a major Jamaican ska band.

[OngBonga]

Sublime is the best white ska I've heard. But Jamaican ska is far superior, it's wonderful music.

You make some fine points about culture, some I agree with, others not so much. With regards language, I did say "almost" static, because it isn't actually static and I'm aware of that. It's very slow to change compared to things directly influenced by technology, in some cases much slower than others. I wasn't really thinking of English when I made those comments, consider Welsh, or Icelandic, or many other minor languages around the world. Have these changed? Not so much, because there's less cultural integration and a stronger national identity. Icelandic is the closest language to Old Norse (Vikings) that we have left. And there are social movements within many nations to preserve their native language where it has become secondary to another. Some Scottish people want to preserve the Celtic language, even though very few people speak it these days (approx 1% of Scotland), and nearly all of those who do also speak English. The number of people who speak exclusively Scots Gaelic must be lower than 100, and they'll be old folk who live on remote islands. Scots Gaelic probably hasn't changed at all in centuries, other than to perhaps borrow a word from English.

People born in Iceland today are growing up in a different world than people born in Iceland a decade ago.

We only really need to go back 50 years in Iceland to see a completely different nation, a poor people who basically spent the winters hiding in their houses trying to keep warm. The shift in standard of living for these people is possibly the most dramatic in the modern world. That of course means huge cultural changes. But they also still believe in pixies. Some aspects of their culture doesn't change.

[Poopadoop]

It's almost as if people care more about paying their bills and getting a doctor's appt. than they do about shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...16-17-jan-2024

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn woke libtard kids!

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ldren-football

[Poopadoop]

Lefty bankers hating on sovereignty.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/brex...achs-says.html

[Poopadoop]

I knew it!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/polit...s-state-blame/

[MadMojoMonkey]

When you're in one of the highest offices in your gov't and you blame the "deep state" for your failures.

You WERE the deep state, you clown.


lol
quango

[Poopadoop]

When you're in one of the highest offices in your gov't and you blame the "deep state" for your failures.

You WERE the deep state, you clown.

Well, not entirely. The DS usually refers to the national security apparatus, e.g., the CIA, FBI, heads of armed forces, etc.. In the UK that would be MI5, MI6, etc. While the president/PM is nominally the head of all of them, that doesn't mean they don't have their own agendas.

It's still hard to see how or why the DS would choose to crash the UK economy to stop Liz Truss though. It was the markets that did that, not MI5, ldo. And it wasn't a part of some woke conspiracy it was because her little budget involved borrowing a shitload of money to give big tax breaks to the wealthy. Which, to quote an economist at the time, was "batshit".

lol
quango

Come on now, everyone knows it was trans civil servants who caused the Great Depression.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fucking mind-blowing that the political right is so butthurt about wokeness that they're willing to throw away democracy over it.


Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson goes to a wealthy neighborhood in the wealthiest Russian city and is "radicalized" against democracy.

Hey Tucker... take a drive 30 minutes in any direction and look at the actual cost of that wealthy region.
SMH

Inb4 Tucker is off to N Korea to talk about the amazing noodles in the supermarket, further radicalizing him.



It's just such a shame that we don't have noodles or supermarkets in the US... oh wait... I mean we have many per square mile in any populated area and driving 30 minutes in any direction will mostly not change that, though the density of supermarkets does go up a bit when you leave the cities. Cities tend to have more specialized shops than a "get it all here" store.

[Poopadoop]

I'd say LT has gone full retard, but it's a little late for that I guess.

I mean her argument isn't even that the DS caused the economy to crash, it's that it (and the trans activisits and whoever other "enemies" she had) wouldn't allow her policies to be enacted. So apparently, as soon as she announced her policies, the markets were ready to start booming, but instead crashed in disappointment when they realised the baddies weren't going to implement them.

That is an amazing thought process going on there.

[OngBonga]

I don't believe for one second Liz Truss was capable of dreaming up economic policies that would result in a boom, but I also don't believe for one second that she, or any PM, was/is actually in control of policy. idk what this has to do with trans activists, but the concept of a "deep state" is not something I dismiss just because it's Liz Truss banging on about it.

I don't think it specifically refers to MI5/MI6 in the UK, it's a loose term that can mean different things to different people. To me, if I can even try to define it, it's unelected people who have more influence on policy than elected people. MI5/MI6 might have significant influence when it comes to national security and foreign policy, but I'm not so sure about economics, so it's not clear to me that they qualify as "deep state".

[Poopadoop]

MI5/MI6 might have significant influence when it comes to national security and foreign policy, but I'm not so sure about economics, so it's not clear to me that they qualify as "deep state".

The word "state" implies it's someone who works for the government though. The bankers don't work for the gov't, the markets don't either. So when a PM announces a financial policy and the markets and banks freak out, it's not because they don't like the PM, it's because they think the policy itself is fucked up in a big way.

In Brains' case, the markets reacted because she announced a big borrowing spree that was going to be used to cut taxes for rich people, with the ostensible purpose of growing the economy (trickle-down economics). This doesn't work at the best of times, but in late 2022 there was already growing inflation and marginal growth, which is a bad time to try to stimulate spending. Don't take my word for it though, there's a blog post here from someone who knows a lot more than I do.

https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/truss-k...udget-one-year

There was also the fact that her and Kwarteng ignored the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, which is solely there to keep politicians from doing retarded things. It's as if they knew the OBR would say "don't do that, that's retarded," but because of blind ideology, or corruption from disaster capitalists disguised as think tanks, or whatever, they went ahead with it.

Margaret Thatcher once said "you can't buck the market." And this is what she meant - you can't enact a retarded monetary policy, or even talk like you are going to, and expect the markets to not react negatively to it.

[Poopadoop]

...

[Poopadoop]

From the link above. It wasn't just the OBR she was threatening to shit all over, it was the Treasury and the Bank of England as well.

Within days of Liz Truss taking office as Prime Minister, the Head of HM Treasury, Sir Tom Scholar, had been sacked. This move was seen by many as a direct challenge to the independence of the Treasury, particularly as the Prime Minister had made clear in her campaign to become Conservative Party Leader that she wanted to change ‘Treasury Orthodoxy’. In addition, she had also made clear in the campaign that she was going to open up the issue of Bank of England independence. And, finally, the Chancellor asked the OBR not to produce their independent forecast and analysis to accompany the Mini-Budget. The financial markets saw all of this as a clear message that the new Prime Minister and Chancellor were challenging/ignoring the advice of the very institutions that had ensured economic and financial stability within the United Kingdom.

[OngBonga]

...in fact if they are that implies an undemocratic political landscape such as North Korea or Russia where the government and state are basically one and the same.

Or it implies a perfect democracy, but I don't think that exists.

[OngBonga]

The word "state" implies it's someone who works for the government though.

On the contrary, it implies the opposite. The government is not the state, it is a party, it is elected, and serves a term before facing another election. The state is an sociopolitical entity, basically a country or a nation. The people who run the country aren't necessarily the same people who run the government, in fact if they are that implies an undemocratic political landscape such as North Korea or Russia where the government and state are basically one and the same.

If you were to ask military folk who they work for, they wouldn't tell you the PM. They would tell you the King. That's because he represents the state, not the PM, which is why he's officially the head of state.

The bankers don't work for the gov't, the markets don't either.

No they don't. The Bank of England is a state financial tool though, the UK's central bank, and they have significant influence on the markets. Unelected people within the Bank of England are in a position to influence economic policy more than elected ministers. So the BoE is, arguably, "deep state".

[Poopadoop]

You can argue semantics over what does and doesn't constitute the "deep state", but none of that changes the fact that it was her batshit economic policies that sunk Liz Truss, not some hidden polity.

[OngBonga]

Well on that we can agree, but I don't find that particularly interesting.

[oskar]

I've been following more UK stuff, since the BBC and The Guardian are two of the few news sources, along with the WAPO that haven't fallen into total hysteria over Gaza and do actual journalism. So I've been following more UK news than usual, and for me the most pressing question is: What the fuck is up with Rishi Sunak?

I hate Trump, but I kind of get Trump. He's kind of funny in a Presidents Say The Darndest Things kind of way. I kind of get Benjamin Netanyahu and his Ur-Fascist entourage. That type of guy is as old as time, but Rishi Sunak? What even is that? Who does that guy appeal to? How does he get to power? Such an insufferable, uppity cunt in every way shape and form.

I just recently heard him speak at length in relation to the Rwanda debacle, and I cannot put it together how that type of guy got into that kind of position. Why that guy and not literally anybody else? Why not a small show dog with a paisley bandana? Seems like something you guys would do.

[OngBonga]

Well he didn't get voted in office. The last guy we voted in was Boris Johnson. After he resigned, Sunak lost a leadership battle against Liz Truss, but poor old Liz bit off more than she could chew and resigned after a month, paving the way for our lucky loser to get the job.

He's toast soon anyway.

[oskar]

The last guy we voted in was Boris Johnson.

That barely answers the question. I just think it's a weird type of personality to be in that position. I'm not going to tell you guys what to do, but on the mainland we just set a couple of cars on fire, and then we have new general election.

I had to look up how you guys do it:

How does the PM call a general election?
The PM formally asks the King to "dissolve" Parliament - the official term for closing Parliament ahead of an election.

[OngBonga]

Presumably if you're going to set fire to cars and kick up a stink to force an election, there's an alternative worth fighting for. That certainly isn't the case here.

Also, we like queueing more than we like rioting. We'll just patiently wait for the next election while grumbling about the bloody weather.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's technically possible for the US to have an non-elected President.

President Ford, Nixon's successor, was never voted for.
The VP on the ticket when Nixon was elected (Agnew) had already resigned and been replaced by appointment.
Then Nixon resigned, leaving the appointed VP as POTUS.

[oskar]

The incredible thing about Sunak is that even his own party hates him. I heard him called "not a real brit" by Tories more than once, even though he's basically a real life caricature of a brit, except for the one thing.
It's like with George Santos. Gay mexican drag queen fraudster - awesome guy, but what the hell is he doing mingling with republicans, he should be on our side!

It's technically possible for the US to have an non-elected President.

President Ford, Nixon's successor, was never voted for.
The VP on the ticket when Nixon was elected (Agnew) had already resigned and been replaced by appointment.
Then Nixon resigned, leaving the appointed VP as POTUS.

The greatest tragedy of that administration that they knocked two of the greatest first names ever out of the pool.

[Poopadoop]

The incredible thing about Sunak is that even his own party hates him.

TLDR: The Tories are basically a broken, fractured party that couldn't do a decent job of running the country even if they wanted to.


I've heard an explanation of Fishi Sunak that I think fits pretty well: He's a symptom, not a cause of the problems in the Tory party.

The country historically leans center-right, and the Tories have most of the MSM on their side, which means they win more often than lose elections. Their problem now is that they've become populated more and more by far-right headbangers who want to do things like send refugees to Rwanda and put peaceful protesters in jail. This element of their party was the main reason why we had Brexit: Cameron (PM at the time) was afraid of pissing off the headbangers 'cause he only had a slim majority so gave them what they wanted: two fingers up to them foreigners.

When Leave won the Brexit vote, Cameron resigned and we got Theresa May. Unfortunately she had the same problem, a party that was divided between headbangers who wanted to burn every bridge with our biggest trading partners, and more centrist people who actually had half a brain. She couldn't resolve their differences, so she got the boot.

Her replacement was of course Bodger Johnson, who actually had quite a bit of charisma if at the same time being a complete wanksock. He got a big majority, and to address the party's problems, he promptly sacked anyone who was both centrist and had any profile. This pushed the Tories further to the right.

Of course, being in the public eye meant it quickly became known how much of a slimeball Johnson is, so after Partygate and a string of other scandals where he hopelessly tried to lie his way out of any accountability for his and his MPs' indefensible behavior, his popularity started sinking fast.

The Tories finally got rid of the Bodge, and needed a replacement. As mentioned, all the sensible and competent people had already been kicked out by Johnson, so their leadership race became a contest between varying degrees of idiots.

Brains Truss won the contest vs. Sunak because the votes were cast by card-carrying members of the Tory party, the type of wealthy people who aren't known for liking them foreign-looking types. It also helped that she promised to cut their taxes, a promise that she kept even though it insta-crashed the economy.

The Tories were sinking even faster in the polls now, and they wanted to avoid another drawn out leadership contest where all the candidates talked about how shit the gov't had been and how they would make it better. So Fishi became PM more or less by default after having finished second behind Brains before (third if you count the lettuce).

The problem with Fishi is a) He still has the same divided party with all the loudest voices on the far-right end of it, and can't run it without tossing a lot of cookies to the headbangers; and b) He has absolutely no political skills whatsoever. So, after two years of him being in office, the Tories are still losing ground in the polls and getting smoked in every by-election and local election. Fishi has, it would seem, given up on actually trying to woo back traditional Tory centrist voters and instead tried to focus on getting the far-right loony vote to keep the Tory headbangers on side.

Ironically, by both a) Bringing far-right issues like immigration to the forefront of the political discussion; and b) utterly failing to deal with any of them effectively, he's actually managed to start also losing support to the Reform UK Party, which is basically Nazi Lite.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...apr-1-may-2024



I don't share Ong's pessimism about what will happen when Labour takes over. First, it would be practically impossible for them to match the Tories in incompetence and corruption. Secondly, they historically do much better in providing public services, those little things like having enough hospitals and buses, and fixing roads. Third, they're more or less united, so there won't be a lot of fucking around with batshit policies trying to keep some loony wing of the party happy. Starmer has taken the opposite approach that Bodger took - he kept the center of the party and told the loonies to fuck off.

But until the election happens, yeah UK politics is definitely a raging skip fire.

[oskar]

Forensic officers found a scrotum and two penile shafts inside a tub of butter marked with the instruction “do not defrost” at his home address.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rius-gustavson

Please explain yourselves.

[OngBonga]

Bollock salad. Human bollock salad.

His head looks like a huge bollock with ears. It's true when they say "you are what you eat".

[oskar]

Speaking of bollock salad: Rishi Sunak warns of what will happen if you don't vote Torie in 2025. You won't believe it, but it's nuclear holocaust!

[Poopadoop]

Speaking of bollock salad: Rishi Sunak warns of what will happen if you don't vote Torie in 2025. You won't believe it, but it's nuclear holocaust!

Dead man talking.

Their whole party is so desperate now they're just coming up with increasingly random, hysterical shit and hoping something works. And none of it does because everyone can see how fcking hopelessly corrupt and incompetent they are.

[OngBonga]

He's holding out until 2025?

[Poopadoop]

Latest news from the UK: people in Devon are now unable to drink their tap water because there's too much shit in it, we now have the largest number of homeless per capita of any developed country, and the gov't has just announced it will cost us £5bn to implement the Brexit checks that will make it harder for our businesses to trade with Europe.

But on a positive note, Fishi Sunak and his wife have just been reported to be £120 million richer than they were last year!

[Poopadoop]

And the countdown to Tory-geddon begins. Thank fuck, I've been waiting two years for this.

[OngBonga]

we now have the largest number of homeless per capita of any developed country

This is subjective and will depend on how each individual country actually defines "homeless". To elaborate, the hotel I work at currently has 8 long-term council residents, all are technically homeless even though they have a roof over their head paid for by the state. That's 8 in one hotel, no idea how many "homeless" we have in total but we have around 175 hotels, and we're unlikely to be the only hotel chain with a government contract. You'll also have hostels and other forms of shelter, and then you'll have the huge number of people sofa surfing or temporarily stopping in a family spare room.

Homeless in the UK means no fixed abode, not necessarily on the streets. Other countries might not define homeless the same, so you can't really compare figures from one country to another.

[Poopadoop]

This is going to be the best election ever.

After standing in the pouring rain to call the election, Fishi's now moved on to the campaign trail. Here he is inspecting a loaf of bread. Not weird at all...

[Poopadoop]

Then, he went on to Wales where he asked some people if they were looking forward to the Euros (which Wales didn't qualify for). Good to see you haven't lost the common touch, Fishi!

https://www.indy100.com/politics/ris...neral-election

[Poopadoop]

Then, with his great eye for optics, he decided to visit a Belfast shipping region known as the Titanic Quarter.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...ining-32886885


Finally, he ended by getting his photo taken in front of an exit sign. It's like he can read our minds!

[Poopadoop]

Ok, I'm starting to think Fishi's campaign team are Labour plants.

[oskar]

This is going to be the best election ever.

After standing in the pouring rain to call the election, Fishi's now moved on to the campaign trail. Here he is inspecting a loaf of bread. Not weird at all...

https://kimjongunlookingatthings.tumblr.com/

[Poopadoop]

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Hitler.

[oskar]

I don't want to come here and dunk on Britain while you guys are having a hard time. They say you shouldn't kick someone when they're down. But that is simply the easiest time to kick somebody, so I don't think anyone could blame me for saying this: Britain has really perfected the character of the smug idiot. Someone with no clue what even the subject at hand is, having supreme confidence in their intellectual superiority.

https://youtu.be/E1vFxVx-nKE?si=Yd_-noKNFf_UlndW&t=707

[MadMojoMonkey]

"If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?"

That's the opposite of politics, sir. That's division - the root of conflict.
Conversation and compromise is the root of democracy.
Hence why we're actually both here - to have a conversation for others to witness.
So drop the "woe is me" hypocrite act and maybe use your voice to reduce conflict, not embrace it.

[oskar]

This isn't very related, but I'll bring it up because I just learned about it: The Xhosa cattle killings in South Africa: In the mid 1800's two children had a prophetic vision in which their ancestors told them that if the Xhosa killed all their cattle, their ancestors would rise from the dead, wash the white men into the sea and bring them new cattle. For reasons that are unclear, this was widely thought of as a good idea. So they killed all their cattle (over 300,000), leading to the starvation of about 80,000 Xhosa.
There are many stories in history that should teach us about the virtues of rationality, but this is an exceptionally direct one.

I do fear we're in a resurgence of ideologies kind of period. Where it becomes increasingly acceptable to believe irrational things. It's why I'm still very anxious about Trump getting re-elected. To have someone in that position in world politics that can go around... literally fighting windmills, seems so dangerous.

And it does tie in with having people like this talk show host, who when faced with someone saying "I don't want my country to facilitate a genocide," all they can do in response is divert and shout nonsense... and that's someone people apparently listen to, so this confused type of thinking resonates.

[OngBonga]

"If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?"

Usually whenever this question is asked, it's not intended as a direct challenge to, you know, fuck off, it's intended as a reminder that someone is choosing to live here, and an invitation to reflect on those reasons. Certainly whenever I've said words to this effect to poop (I prefer "why do you stay" as a less aggressive way of asking), I'm not asking him to leave, I'm asking him why he lives here. The answer is, of course, because it's a stable economic and social landscape for the vast majority of people, including working migrants. And that hasn't changed since we left the EU, as demonstrated by the fact that people like poop, and presumably the young lady in this video (it's not clear she's not British), continue to reside, work and thrive here. I ask poop that question when it seems relevant to the discussion. If he hates that we left the EU so much, why doesn't he move to somewhere still within the EU? He surely could. Because being outside of the EU isn't so bad. Hence, I'm posing the question in good faith.

In this video oskar posts, it's just a fucking idiot. It's not a relevant question... like, by living here, you choose to support British foreign policy? Nonsense. By living here you do choose to accept the law, culture, and the political and economic landscape, but you don't have to blindly support the British government.

She keeps her composure well and responds perfectly.

[Poopadoop]

Asking someone why they don't leave a country to go live somewhere else is kinda dumb though because it's not like anyone can just go live in any country they want whenever they want. Having moved to other countries before the only reason I've moved was because of work, and my only options in that respect were places where English was spoken because that's the only language I know right now.

If they want to move my job to Spain, sort out my house and car, and pay for my Spanish lessons, cool, sign me up. Otherwise I'll just wait till I retire. Also, I'll probably be bitching alot less about the UK in five weeks' time. Apart from how it's currently being run and the fact the media is dominated by right wingers, it's not that bad.

[Poopadoop]

UK election news:

After being caught in a barefaced lie about Labour's spending plans, Fishi is now doing his best to lose the last remaining demographic that might possibly vote for him (the over 70s). To do this, Fishi cut short his visit to Normandy yesterday to come back to the UK and tape a TV interview that won't be broadcast for another week. Nice one, Fishi!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69098963

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... I try to sympathize with your political plights, but it's hard when the 2 people running for POTUS this year are both utterly unlikable and unfit for the job. FFS, one of them was just convicted on 34 felony charges, and that's not even enough to get his supporters to say, "Maybe this isn't a good choice for President."

It doesn't help at all that they're both so damn old that they lack any sense of charisma that you'd normally expect from someone running such high profile political campaigns.

I don't know anyone who wants to vote for either of them. It's only a question of which of them deserves the job less than the other. Which, lets be honest, is always part of the dilemma, but this time it's the ONLY dilemma.

[Poopadoop]

Other than that, I agree it's hard to out-shitshow the US political scene right now.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Other than that, I agree it's hard to out-shitshow the US political scene right now.

[Poopadoop]

What gives me a bit of hope is that the Labour leader seems quite upright. They just can't find any dirt on him, and he's purged his party of all the nutters. Will have to wait and see if that hope is justified, but goddamn things can't get much worse than they are now.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If Trump wins the election, he'll be the first president who is not legally allowed to own a gun (in the state of NY).
I mean... he still gets access to the US nuclear codes, presumably, so it's not all bad for him.

[Poopadoop]

Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose any voters? Right now, Keir Starmer could kick a puppy in the balls on national TV, piss on the Queen's grave, and say he hates cricket, and not lose a single vote.

That's how badly people want the Tories out. How they've managed to appoint the three worst PMs in living memory one right after the other is just remarkable. Bodger Johnson, Brains Truss, and now Fishi. Unbelievable.

[OngBonga]

I mean they won't, but it would be absolutely hilarious.

Probably more likely is that the Tories win in 5 years with Farage as leader. That will send people nuts.

[Poopadoop]

I mean they won't, but it would be absolutely hilarious.

Probably more likely is that the Tories win in 5 years with Farage as leader. That will send people nuts.

The Tories making Farage their leader would be the end of them. The guy lost an election to a dolphin ffs. The country simply isn't that full of the right-wing nutters who like Farage's schtick. The vast majority of people are either center-left or center-right.

I mean wherever they go from Sunak it's not going to be pretty, they've virtually got no-one sensible left. Sunak was sort of sensible albeit the world's worst politician.

The Tories won't get back in power until they take a sharp turn back towards the center. It's Labour for the next 10 years. Better get used to it. Oh, and we'll probably be back in the EU by the end of those 10 years so you can look forward to that too.