The Conservative party hasn't been conservative in a long time. Conservatism is fundamentally rooted in a desire to avoid fucking everything up - the clue is very much in the name - which naturally translates into a careful approach to politics in which any change from the status quo is made as gradually and tentatively as possible, with reverting to the status quo being the default position.
Brexit (and the spectre of a chaotic no-deal) is the obvious example of Tory radicalism, but it's far from the only one. The switch to Universal Credit was pushed through, even after the pilot schemes made it obvious that the computer system didn't work properly, there were major shortcomings in the design of the system and people were being forced into destitution as a result. Same with ESA and the Work Capability Assessment - it was obvious that ATOS/Maximus were doing a terrible job and ruining lives, but nobody thought to just revert to the old system. Neither policy has saved a meaningful amount of money.
I can't in good conscience vote for Corbyn, because his whole platform is based on radical (albeit often very vaguely articulated) change. I don't think he'd change his mind on mass re-nationalisation, even if it turned out to be a complete shit-show. I don't think he'd cut back on spending if the OBR said he needed to; I doubt he'd cut back on spending even if the pound was in freefall, inflation was in triple digits and the World Bank were calling.
Boris has a track record as London mayor of pissing money up the wall on schemes that he had been told would be unworkable, from Boris Island to the water cannons. His approach to Brexit based on wishful thinking and "British pluck" is a million miles from anything that could be reasonably described as conservative. He seems utterly convinced that any political problem can be fixed with bluff and bluster.
The Lib Dems are largely unproven in government, but they have a pretty good track record at the local level; they stand almost no chance of getting a majority, but depriving Labour and the Tories of a majority and forcing them into some kind of coalition would at least temper their worst impulses to some extent. For all the stick that Clegg got about the Cameron coalition, they did actually manage to get a lot of sensible policies through parliament and block a lot of daft policies.
Not him, but I think that identity politics is rooted in a subtle and insidious form of dolphin rape that we don't readily recognise.
Sajid Javid is a Tory MP who happens to be Asian. Nobody is denying his lived experience as a British Asian, but it isn't central to who he is as a person. A quick search on Twitter will turn up an awful lot of left-wing activists calling him a "coconut" - brown on the outside, white on the inside. A lot of people on the left seem to believe that an Asian Tory has somehow betrayed their Asianness by being a Tory.
I don't want to gloss over right-wing dolphin rape for a moment - there were plenty of nasty bastards who were outraged at a "p**i" becoming home secretary - but that doesn't excuse the subtler form of dolphin rape that is implicit in identity politics. Your race or sexuality shouldn't define you as a person, but a lot of people on the left seem to believe otherwise. If black politician says that gang members in Hackney need better male role models and a sense of personal responsibility, many people on the left cannot accept that they simply hold a different political opinion, but instead accuse them of betraying their ethnicity, of being an uncle tom, of expressing internalised dolphin rape. The content of their mind is devalued because of the colour of their skin.
I'm all for inclusiveness, which is precisely why I am made uncomfortable by identity politics. I've been in far too many rooms where BME and LGBT people have been patronised and othered by ostensible "allies". I've heard far too many conversations where someone has been made to feel less safe and less welcome precisely because of a patronising and hyper-sensitive attitude to diversity. We absolutely need to fight against all forms of bigotry, but we can't do that with an insidious form of bigotry that elevates categories of identity above personal choices.
>>86453 I bet the water cannons more than paid for themselves. £300k is fuck all to pander to his base and appear tough on unrest. It's hardly his fault that Theresa May placed the hooman rights of rioters above a deserved good hiding is it?
And after it emerged that May tried to hide intelligence from Boris as Foreign Secretary it's hardly unreasonable to view her refusal to okay the cannons as petty and politically calculated.
>>86457 >I bet the water cannons more than paid for themselves. £300k is fuck all to pander to his base and appear tough on unrest.
The money for them came out of the public purse so this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
>It's hardly his fault that Theresa May placed the hooman rights of rioters above a deserved good hiding is it?
They were also broken and not roadworthy.
It might have been sensible to ask the home office for permission before spending 300 grand on them. It might also have been useful to ask the police whether they actually wanted water cannons - a key reason for the home office refusal was opposition from ACPO.
>I've always held that making people of different identities feel safe and included can do nothing but make a movement stronger. However you seem to be railing against so-called identity politics on the grounds that it makes organisations ineffective.
The issue is it takes time and effort to write up a proper thought out discrimination policy, when really it should be as simple as saying 'this organisation is against being a unreasonable to people'. most non business organisations are a hand full of people trying to manage a larger group of people on good will they don't have access to a lawyer and a public relations expert to handle these issues, they would much rather just focus on what goal they are trying to achieve.
And these things are a never ending source of contention and argument that distracts away from focusing on the intentions of an organisation.
>Can you provide some concrete examples of what you mean?
The most concreate example I can point to which you would have heard of is the 99% movement which spent less time dealing with the economic issues and message and more time making sure it was inclusive in a way that made it ineffectual.
I've also overheard a young adult privileged white girl complaining at a volunteer run convection that it didn't have a good enough discrimination policy whist standing in said convention, one which I have been the committee for previously. These people are very quick to complain how things are phlegmatic but they won't offer practical solutions because they know there isn't one. I would have spoken up about 'well you obviously feel comfortable enough to be here' but I'm sure they would write a blog post and attack the organization on social media afterwards because being confronted made them feel unsafe.
>>86458 They were made roadworthy and that is included in the £300k cost. What do you think new water cannon cost? Hint: it's going on six times as much.
>>86459 Cameron had given assurances that they would be licensed if more riots were to occur. It's better to have your preparations go to waste than be caught with your pants down.
>>86466 Yeah Stewlee recently wrote for the Guardian on Boris, referencing his past two routines, and addressing the reader as 'dude' for some reason. I'm sure the latter is unbearably clever in some way that has gone over my head, or will be made clear in an extra feature when the column comes out on DVD.
>>86452 >I've always held that making people of different identities feel safe and included can do nothing but make a movement stronger. However you seem to be railing against so-called identity politics on the grounds that it makes organisations ineffective.
>>86471 I have, and I see no evidence that said organisation is ineffective in its aims as a direct result of asking people to use the right pronouns and so on.
Well you've done 2 things there. The first is claiming up is down.
The second is to change the goal posts to just being about misuse of pro-nouns to dodge acknowledging the shit show caused by focusing too heavily on inclusiveness.
>>86473 POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE!
I find it difficult to comprehend words of more than three syllables. Can we please limit our usage of excessively polysyllabic words?
>>86511 Given that the lads in Cheltenham will know your plans of revolution before you've even decided to revolt, what exactly do you think you'd be able to do?
>>86511 There are protests up and down the country, or so I'm told. There's even one in Chester. Or we could just start... no, sorry, can't post that, it's criminal offence.
If I was going to try and get around this law requiring me to write a specific letter to ask for an extension on the 19th of October, I would have a short break to John O'Groats and then when I have to write the letter (at 23.55) I would give it to a fat man to hand deliver to Tusk, and the fat man would start walking there. We'd be out of the EU before the letter even arrives!
For the same reason that if I paid my electricity bill by setting off a cheque as a message in a bottle on the day it's due, I'd probably still get my power cut before SSE fishes it out of the sea on their end.
>>86828 Section 1 subsection 4 of the Surrender Act 2019, sometimes referred to as the Capitulation Act, states that "The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019" before it goes on to specify the method of communicating this.
On the face of it, sending a letter that he knows, as an assumed reasonable person, cannot arrive in time does nothing to discharge his duty to seek an extension. We needn't examine how courts effortlessly swat away these puerile word games, because he failed to defeat the letter of the law, much less the spirit.
The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00pm on 31 October 2019 by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act requesting an extension of that period to 11.00pm on 31 January 2020 in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.
There's absolutely nothing here that says he must ensure that the letter reaches the recipient in time. It says he must "seek to obtain...an extension... By sending... A letter".
That's a judgement that any act specifying that a document should be served by post should be considered to have been delivered in the due course of post.
However, Benn Act says he must "send a letter" but has no actual requirement that Mr Johnson uses the postal service to send it, or specify a time limit for when the European Commission should have received said letter.
>>86836 >That's a judgement that any act specifying that a document should be served by post should be considered to have been delivered in the due course of post.
You might want to read it before commenting, m7.
>>86838 The authorities attempted to serve notice during a well-advertised postal strike. It was delayed by the strike, and accordingly it was not served.
If Johnson attempts to send the letter by some way calculated not to get there, then in the eyes of the law he will not have sent it.
It will have been calculated to get there, hand delivered by a courier who is walking directly. The summons in your case was required to come within 14 days, the Benn letter has no similar requirement.
The no deal has been part of his plan all along. Why bother fucking around negotiating at all? Just plan for the worst, hope for the best and stiff upper lip, etc.