Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
They remind me of the Russian anarchist who in October 1990 famously announced 'We must organise.'
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits. This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die). But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it. I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
I think Mr Cummings is the most ruthless prime minister the country has ever had.
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits. This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die). But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it. I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
I think Mr Cummings is the most ruthless prime minister the country has ever had.
Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
They remind me of the Russian anarchist who in October 1990 famously announced 'We must organise.'
Nothing wrong with that. Anarchism is a grass roots movement, so as long as the organistion is grass roots led, no contradiction. Like the self governing commune in the Holy Grail:
Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
They've been active in shutting down Central Manchester this week. But that ain't London, so no one noticed.
It’s an imperfect analogy - as are pretty well all analogies - since it suggests he’ll die at the end of the process, which obviously isn’t the case. And even on the metaphorical level ignores the fact that those likely to suffer the consequences of the game of chicken are lots of people who are not Dominic Cummings. About whom he doesn’t give two shits. This bit was quite good, though. As I said: I’m speculating. But it fits my existing mental model of Dominic Cummings, which is that he reads these fascinating, interesting ideas from brilliant people, and takes completely the wrong message from them. For one thing, a key principle of the Rationalist blogosphere that we both admire is the “principle of charity”, the idea that “if you don’t understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs”, rather than assuming people are stupid or evil....
I don't doubt that Cummings doesn't give two shits (perhaps to extend the metaphor, he has a James Bond style ejector seat to get out of the car before it crashes but all the passengers die). But I think the key point remains. The EU will be damaged in a no deal, but not catastrophically so, and is prepared to take the damage to keep the train on the rails than derail it. I must admit I didn't quite follow the italicised quote point. Is the author saying Cummings doesn't get this point, or does get it?
I think Mr Cummings is the most ruthless prime minister the country has ever had.
You strike me as being very young and very silly.
You are too kind, Mr Floater. But do tell me, who is in control of the machinery of government nowadays?
Governments win elections, they also have the power to lose them.
Governments can spend their way to victory or mitigating defeat. They can cut taxes, increase spending or just advertise themselves to victory.
In the 2010 General election and the period leading up to it there was a government advertising blitz that was within the rules but ethically speaking questionable. Should Government advertising be used in the run up to a General Election in a way to try and boost the incumbent’s possibility of electoral victory?
The same dilemma approaches now as the Government, which has not been directed elected by the people embarks on an advertising blitz, which has the potential to coincide with the calling of a General Election. I think an unelected Government is plain wrong to promote No Deal at public expense when the real reason for doing so is a blatant attempt to boost the Governments polling.
The media output of the Brexit supporting press has been producing stories on a daily basis to boost Boris Johnson and hence support the Tories. Indeed, the propaganda has gone into overdrive.
I have come to the conclusion given the misuse of public funds by the Conservative party for blatant propaganda on No Deal that the only way to deal with the PM is to remove him from office rather than trying to change legislation.
Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
They've been active in shutting down Central Manchester this week. But that ain't London, so no one noticed.
Interesting lunch with some green activists. Exftinction Rebellion are planning a busy October. All part of the perfect storm developing then in Westminster.
They've been active in shutting down Central Manchester this week. But that ain't London, so no one noticed.
I noticed, trust me I bloody noticed.
Bunch of soap dodging parasites.
Were you board, man at their Robin you of your free time to Pattison protesting?
Right... so I only have to abide by the law if I like the legislation?
If the act passed by Parliament is constitutionally illegal then the Government don't have to follow it. Trouble is Remainers want to pick and choose which bits of the constitution they will follow to suit themselves
Interesting concept - a law passed by Parliament being illegal.
I keep thinking we've reached peak Brexiteer stupidity, but no.
The negotiation and execution of treaties is part of the Royal Prerogative. Parliament cannot simply ignore that because it finds it incovenient. If they want to change that they need to introduce primary legislation specifically changing that and removing the Royal Prerogative powers from the Executive. I have long said on here they should do this but until they do they don't get to pick which bits of the constitution they ignore. Remainer arrogance and stupidity keeps plumbing new depths.
As you say, parliament has the power to limit the royal prerogative in any way it wishes.
Comments
https://youtu.be/R7qT-C-0ajI
Governments can spend their way to victory or mitigating defeat. They can cut taxes, increase spending or just advertise themselves to victory.
In the 2010 General election and the period leading up to it there was a government advertising blitz that was within the rules but ethically speaking questionable. Should Government advertising be used in the run up to a General Election in a way to try and boost the incumbent’s possibility of electoral victory?
The same dilemma approaches now as the Government, which has not been directed elected by the people embarks on an advertising blitz, which has the potential to coincide with the calling of a General Election. I think an unelected Government is plain wrong to promote No Deal at public expense when the real reason for doing so is a blatant attempt to boost the Governments polling.
The media output of the Brexit supporting press has been producing stories on a daily basis to boost Boris Johnson and hence support the Tories. Indeed, the propaganda has gone into overdrive.
I have come to the conclusion given the misuse of public funds by the Conservative party for blatant propaganda on No Deal that the only way to deal with the PM is to remove him from office rather than trying to change legislation.
Bunch of soap dodging parasites.
NEW THREAD