I hope it's a history books worthy total fucking disaster lmao
Yeah, if they reject Evans then I will laugh my arse off.
They probably would but they won't get the chance since the vote is optional for some reason lol
Whose hyped to read Keith’s policy free dissertation. (I respect it fuck footnotes)
I'll probably just read someone's summary of it on reddit and then post it here because I know nobody else will read it
I’l prob control f around it to try and find some joy it stuff when it launches
Fugg, was gonna make a thread leading with that lmao, was gonna call it "/monarcho-Juche/ edition"
is there any way we can upload it to marxists.org for the keks?>>495302
would've been based tbh
Can we have some context bro I’m lazy
If they think I’m fighting against China and are willing to put a gun in my hands after giving me boot camp training that is their problem. this is my insurance against the draft, if you are reading this MI5, then doubtless you know who I am, if I am conscripted at any point, I will frag multiple officers
PR is better. One of the CPB and labours more stupid points is not being pro PR. Yeh sure it gives us more power if win but also, we never win.
We’d have to win to get pr , so why bother doing it when we just won.
She was reporting on police conducting a raid into a republican area of Derry when a disso gave a kid a gun and they shot her. She was a gay catholic journo whose work was holding PSNI to account. It was a whole thing.
AV is unironically good BUT the figures show it would have lead to a bigger Cameron victory lol. It would have put a cap on the SNP tho.
We live in a bourg democracy winning is not permanent >>495868
Is this the one a couple years back?
Literally every British politician is a pedophile, why vote for any of them
AV is mediocre and would've mitigated the cathartic lib-dem wipeout. If he did nothing else in his life, Clegg should be sent to hell for doing a coalition for less than proportional representation. That's an unspeakable level of incompetence.
The debate was cunts on all sides, but the No2AV campaign was more BetterTogether tier in its shitness and I hope everyone involved in it contracts an incurable flesh eating disease.
The main reason to support AV would be to set the precedent of changing the voting system so that a better one could be picked later.>>495804
this is what Blair thought when he threw Roy Jenkins "what if we had a weird hybrid AV thing I thought up because I'm old and have too much time on my hands" report on the electoral system into the fireplace. It works really well except Labour is incredible at losing power.
for Labour, if not the communist parties, the ideal strategy would be to win a big majority in term 1, ram through the legislation for all the changes they want to make, then do PR about half way through term 2 because they're almost certain to fumble being in power by term 3 anyway.
Is this the one a couple years back?
Brits and americans will gift a nuclear sub to australia
the french are so dramatic
(but not in a europhile way.)
Idk if CPB won they should just start up the dict proletariat and then pr reform becomes pointless.
And labour will literally never do it, ever.
Futher on the general concept, pr has basically just delivered center right goverment a continuously all over Europe. It would just mean the Blairites, Lib Dem’s and Tory’s form a coalition litterally every election.
Wtf are those adds lmao. So dogbrained
mad that we're not getting the isolated Britannia ending, hated by all going alone
I am now pro AV based on these gay ads >>496580>if the CPB won
Ain’t gonna happen but you might get some seats under PR and get to stand in parliament and bark greyzone articles at Keir Starmer which would be dope AF.
>right wing govts across Europe
Already the case with current voting system only without blasting high volume Ben Norton takes directly into the ears of Rees Mogg
Tbf that does sound very funny and cool.
>LabourList can exclusively reveal the rule changes being sent for review by Labour’s ruling body on Friday before going to party conference – some of which have been labelled a “bureaucratic power grab” by left-wing group Momentum.
>Some on the Labour left have expressed concern about a potential “professionalisation” of candidates, which could see more selected from outside the movement who have limited connections to the unions and membership.
>Responding to the Momentum criticism, Luke Akehurst, NEC member and co-director of pro-Starmer group Labour to Win, said: “I’m puzzled by the attitudes that might have led to Momentum finding uncontentious rule changes like this problematic.
>“It’s obvious that any political party needs to have the right to reject membership applications from people who do not share its values, e.g. racists, to insist that people who run for public office are properly trained, and to take action if people who hold office as Labour MPs or councillors do something that is grossly detrimental to the party.”
>In light of recent litigation that has damaged Labour’s financial situation, the party is also seeking to protect itself by specifying in its rulebook that any member who “instigates, brings, lodges, issues or funds” legal action that is partly or wholly unsuccessful must reimburse Labour for costs incurred.https://labourlist.org/2021/09/exclusive-new-party-rule-changes-criticised-as-bureaucratic-power-grab/
lol Starmer is an actual MI5 agent
>>495804>We’d have to win to get pr , so why bother doing it when we just won.
Because when we "win" we "win" with around 300 shithead liberals, and in the meantime we spend an inordinate amount of time fingering ourselves within Labour's factional autism world. If we're going to win with hundreds of retarded liberals we may as well put ourselves in a position we have actual autonomy and can eat away at a crippled Labour with hardly any union or activist backing.
This and also the purpose of a labour government isn’t a labour government it’s clearing the way for a communist party and a communist government
I was referencing the cpb. Labour would never do pr. it would eliminate at least 2/3rds of their mps at minimum.
Labour are more likely to do PR with the LDs than let another left winger be in charge.
I disagree. There’s litterally no chance of pr passing parliament ever. It would mean most people in parliament loose their jobs , no one votes to fire themselves.
I'm not sure what the effect of PR would be on sitting MPs or even how the reps are chosen in PR tbh. I would assume that the sitting MPs would give themselves priority over new candidates based on seniority, since they'd write the bill and have the political power to pull it off like that.
Either way they had a referendum on AV once, so I imagine for a coalition a very dirty PR referendum is on the cards, but I think Unite would blast their political funds on it which most MPs are too dimwitted to predict. Also the people that got out for Corbyn would probably do it just to fuck with Labour.
I think this is quite naive. For most mps to keep there seats you would have to like double or triple the size of parliament. Even with a list system, the two major parties would split into at least 3 parties each. That would mean at most either party could get 25% of the mps (this is a major high point in any or party electoral system) this would leave at least half the mps in both parties without seats. I just cannot believe people would ever vote to loose their jobs, or put it up to a referendum.
would it really though what's your evidence.
People are quite arrogant though, they always assume they wouldn't loose their jobs. Why would you have to increase the size of parliament? You could probably actually get a broad coalition from brexit party types who don't like the Tories either, Greens, lib dems, all the micro parties. The thing about smaller parties is they tend to have a larger active base which counts in a referendum scenario
>>496749>For most mps to keep there seats you would have to like double or triple the size of parliament.
Counterpoint: This is MPs we're talking about. If you dangled the carrot of making 10,000 MPs and they can keep their trough, they would do it.>>496757>People are quite arrogant though, they always assume they wouldn't loose their jobs.
Also this, MPs are fairly dimwitted and full of hubris.
Let’s take the last Spanish election for example (these results are typical of almost all pure pr elections),
They operate a pr system with lists (the party gets to list the candidates they want in parliament by number e.g if 100 mps and you get 4% of the vote the top 4 people on the party list become mps)
The most popular party managed 28% , this is around the peak of what party’s can achieved , at the very top it gets to like 35%.
Now look at the current parliament https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2019_Spanish_general_election
The tories got 56% of the mps. Even under the best case scenario at a future election they could get like 30% of the mps , so most would loose their seats. This effect would be even more extrem in Britain as both party’s would split, with the rump center factions loosing most of their seats (UKIP faction taking large parts of torie votes , corbyn taking large parts of labour.)
So yeah most would loose their seats. Which is why I don’t think it’s plausible.
>>496758> Counterpoint: This is MPs we're talking about. If you dangled the carrot of making 10,000 MPs and they can keep their trough, they would do it.
No I agree this is the way you would have to do it. At least triple the size of parliament, which would be pretty funny.
Parliament would have to be either moved or totally renovated. I bet that would come up in the referendum on how "We can't change the voting system because we're greedy bastards who refuse to do so without tripling the size of parliament and building a ten million pound palace to hold it in!!!"
Peoples war it is then fuck sake
Offer them a palace with cushier seats, and watch how MPs and prospective MPs rush to manufacture consent. The real problem in tripling parliament would be the fear of losing importance. In a body of 10 MPs, 1 vote is 10%, in a body with 100 MPs, a vote is 1%, so tripling the parliament would lower the individual weight of MPs on wotes by a factor of 3.
It's humza yousaf btw, if you can't tell with the mask
what sub? what happened?
Imagine thinking you're so important you deserve a lad who has to jog behind you carrying your crutches instead of just using them like a normal person.
I'd be up for changing the voting system if only because electoral politics is a fuckin' snoozefest at the moment and it would at least mean something happens.
>One of the trainers came up to me in the gym today.
>He’s always trying to talk me,
>I feel bad cos I’m just not up for gym trainer craic.
>he seems upset that I don’t want to be his friend and he keeps trying.
>Bare in my mind this is like a 50 year old extremely jacked Asian( Asian like Pakistani/Indian probably) man from govan
>Anyway he comes up to me (right at the end of my rest period between sets which is why I don’t like talking to people in the gym)
>he goes “can I ask you a question”
>I go “yeh what’s up”
>he says “what are you listening to”
>show him my phone screen
>Don Cabellero “the Peter Chris Jazz”
>offer him the headphone I had removed when he started speaking to me
>evidently has no idea what this is
>says, “right, well whatever gets you going”
>says “what do you think I listen to”
>I’m like “I dunno, house or something”
>he takes off his ear phone and offers it to me
>I take it and listen
>it’s the motherfucking Soviet national anthem
>I smile and laugh, hand him back the headphone
>i say, “is that the new one or..”
>he cuts me off “no it’s the original Soviet one”
>I say nothing, taking it in
>he says “see you should never judge a book by its cover, today it’s this on repeat, tomorrow it’s Star Trek theme on repeat
>I said “are you a Trekkie?”
>he looks at me like I’m a Dumbass and says “yes”
>he says, it’s whatever gets you pumped up
>I say, “that’s it man”
>he walks off with his weights
>new found respect
>have now over done my rest by like 3 whole minutes
>>497484>UK >New Deal
Why can't you get your own thing bongs?
Fbut also: I assumed he was already dead.
Why is MMP never an alternative option during these referendum? NZ successfully managed to switch over from FPTP because it retains local MPs on the surface while implementing proportional representation.
The fact that even burgoid 'leftists' unironically thinks that the crown literally OWNS all the land and like directly taxes people like feudalism is a bit retarded even for them.
>>497569>The fact that even burgoid 'leftists' unironically thinks that the crown literally OWNS all the land and like directly taxes people like feudalism is a bit retarded even for them.
Lol. Cope feudal subject. Imagine being a literal feudal serf and calling other people dumb.https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/this-land-aint-your-land-part-1/
The British Isles are comprised of 60 million acres of real estate. Who owns it all? The short answer is Queen Elizabeth ll. The Queen, which we call ‘The Crown’, owns about one sixth of the planet’s surface, and is the largest legal land owner in the World.
Although we have come to think of the British Empire as being a ghost of its former self, in reality Elizabeth ll owns only 22% less than Queen Victoria did during the height of the Empire. That’s about 2000 million acres, better known as India. The Queen continues to legally own all the lands of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 32 other members (around two-thirds) of the Commonwealth, and Antarctica. Feudalism is not dead. It’s just hiding.
In Britain the Land Act of 1925 allegedly gave British subjects the right to two kinds of ownership. Freehold and Leasehold. Let’s have a careful look at these. Freehold is described in the Land Registry Act of 2002 as ‘an interest in an estate in land, fee simple’. Leasehold is similarly ‘an interest in an estate in land, in fee simple, for a term of years’. Fee simple is the important phrase here. It’s a medieval phrase which puts limitations on ownership in the form of taxation, police power, Eminent Domain and Escheat.
Eminent Domain (also known as Compulsory Purchase) gives the Crown, or its Government agents, the power to purchase land from the freeholder in the event of necessity. The freeholder has no power to refuse this purchase. Escheat occurs if the freeholder dies without heirs. The property then automatically reverts to the feudal lord who is immediately superior, or in modern parlance – The Crown.
Freehold and Leasehold do seem in principle to be about long term ownership, but in reality are both a form of feudal tenure bestowed on us by the Crown. At any point the Crown can take back your land if it is deemed a necessity.
I'm not reading all that m8
Yeah but she 'owns' the land the same way the Chinese state does.
She's just 'renting' it out to people but post-cromwell those 'renters' have more rights in relation to use of that land then her.
>>497586>Yeah but she 'owns' the land the same way the Chinese state does.
Not a feudal monarchy. Why can Anglos not into non-divine right?
>She's just 'renting' it out to people but post-cromwell those 'renters' have more rights in relation to use of that land then her.
She has absolute right to seize "your" land at anytime.
>>497591>She has absolute right to seize "your" land at anytime.
Yeah but she functionally cant and never will will though.
De-Facto is much more important then de-jure in a materialist analysis
politicians don't want any form of PR, then of the forms of PR those who want PR do want, they tend to look towards STV rather than MMP. Either because MMP has the practical issue of needing either very big constituencies (perhaps to the point of ridiculousness if the Western Isles + Orkney and Shetland keep their special status) to fit in the PR element with 650 MPs, or adding another few hundred MPs (which people don't like the idea of when the parliament is already quite big)
even in Scotland where they did pick it and could basically keep the Westminster constituencies (before they were reduced in 2005) they stuck in the regional list system to give it a bit of a bias rather than just delivering a national result as it does in NZ.
tbh it's a shame the historical circumstances never came together in Britain the way they did in NZ. It's the only thing approaching a consolation prize for the suffering that happened under the transition to neoliberalism: politicians lied and cheated you consistently, now here's a new voting system that makes it harder for them to do it again. and while the fact they've never done anything quite so vile again is more down to international economic circumstances than anything else, you can definitely see that it pushed the 1999-2008 Labour government in a better direction than Blair's went under FPTP. Though that owes a lot to historical factors too. (i.e. having to distance themselves from the fact they let an unhinged libertarian run the economy in the 1980s.)
>>497604>>But it's important that he retain that right
Who are you >implying?
americans are just mad that if they elect a government to get shit done it'll get tripped up because they decided to order one of everything on the menu of unrepresentative bullshit.
british government: you elect an MP, who proxies a party, which goes to parliament and governs roughly in lines with the manifesto it is elected on and the principles you know it to stand for. every so often a gang of lords and political appointees will delay things about 15 minutes just to remind everyone they exist and they need their water changed. when parliament passes a law, that it's it, that's the law. simple as.
US government: you have to elect a congress, a congress being made up of the very gerrymandered thing that's designed to represent a geographic area while also taking into account the population of those areas with the nonsense constituency boundaries making a mockery of that idea, and the thing which is purposefully designed to not be representative of population meaning that any of the states noteworthy only because an interstate plane decided to crash there in the great dust storm of 1971 and kill everyone aboard get as many votes as the megacity corridor slowly metastasizing within California. then as though this wasn't already the kind of thing you'd find in the decaying ruins of the holy roman empire, you've got to elect a president. now here's the beautiful part: unless all three of these components are in perfect harmony, nothing gets done. you can bring them into harmony with bribery, sometimes, but other times the government is just going to turn off because the gears are jammed. like apple, we believe that if we tell you this is a feature and not a bug you'll be silly enough to fall for it. oh, also of course the president isn't elected based off the popular vote, why not make every state its own weird constituency so that weird results happen and those can be delegated to the gerontocracy - i mean the supreme court!
yes, why have 3 branches fight when you can have 4? buy the first 3 and we'll throw in the supreme court absolutely free: so you've elected a president and two houses of people who all agree they want to make things better - that's dangerous, can't have that - so what we need now is a court which is considered equal to all the other parts, which is filled with political appointees who're allowed to stick around until they die, thus allowing past presidents to hobble their predecessors providing they're fortunate enough to have an old person die during their term. you've all passed a law? guess what: doesn't count, if we imagine that the constitution is actually written in code where it says what i want it to say, it says you can't have that law. too bad, that's precedent now. :)
oh, and this system is so great that we've ctrl+c ctrl+v'd it across most of the 50 states because if there's one thing Holyrood was missing it wasn't meaningful fiscal autonomy, it's a lame-duck governor and an upper house that would be so talent-barren that most of its membership would surely be random party members drafted into the role.
Nice topic change.
So communist Bongs, what will happen to the monarchy after the revolution? Are you going to name Elizabeth your communist queen?
>>497561>However, Keir Starmer allies are confident that a card vote on Evans would be won,
Famous last words
Every fat burger that comes to this thread literally just likes to whipped the kinky bastards
>>497631>>497616>oh, and this system is so great that we've ctrl+c ctrl+v'd it across most of the 50 states
Nit picky point but each state is another level of complexity because each state has its own separate constitution, and separate legal definitions and can't even agree whether to call things "counties" or "parishes" or "boroughs" or what. On top of that, the states could theoretically still engage in nullification, the issue that was supposed to have been resolved by the Civil War.
>>496580>rob griffiths leading the dictatorship of the proletariat
easier to imagine keir starmer, tbh
i appreciate that even in nitpicking terms, the nitpick is that it underplays the insanity that is the constitution of the world superpower.
Literally all of the UK is a shithole. I can't wait for a based scottish independence to obliterate the kingdom and England to become a even bigger wasteland of despair.
If Scots invented sex why are they so bad at it? Curious!
t. Turning Point UK
The Chad Scotsman strikes again. Independence by 2025, communism by 2026
Social-fascist Labour party in power in Wales enforcing vaccine passports as demanded by the world bourgeoisie, the WEF, IMF, NATO, EU and more. No luxuries for the working class allowed.
Pretty sure fucking livestock isn't inventing sex, Anon…
**An old Greek man and an old Italian man are arguing.
The Greek man says "Look, all I'm saying is that the Greeks invented everything the Romans get credit for!" The Italian says "Yes, may be, but the Romans improved it and made it useful!" The Greek man says "We invented the Democracy!" The Italian says "We realized the challenge of direct elections and the benefit of the legislature, and thus created the Republic!" The Greek man says "Yes, but we created beautiful architecture like the Parthenon!" The Italian says "And we improved your building techniques, and used them to create aqueducts and structures that stood for centuries longer!" The Greek man, frustrated, finally says "Ah, of course. But the Greeks, we INVENTED sex!" The Italian man says "That may be true, but we introduced it to women."**
cope from sexlet englishman
Notice no incel shooting in Scotland. Not a coincidence
>>499413>cope from sexlet englishman >Notice no incel shooting in Scotland. Not a coincidence
Thomas Hamilton was probably a protoincel (rape doesn't count)
this was before devolution, this one is on you too English pig name one since
Isn’t one of the biggest incel guys that Scottish chain smoker who sits in the dark and complained when he got fired from Tesco for being racist.
>>499419>that Scottish chain smoker who sits in the dark and complained when he got fired from Tesco for being racist
I do love scottish culture. They have such a healthy lifestyle up there.
>>499423>those scottish>downs a carling>always drinking tennents >eats a pie>those fat >takes a drag of a benson >sterling smoking >does a line of coke >smackhead>votes tory >liberals
come now, we are all fat cunts in britain and its colder up here
I said its colder up here. We need the insulation.
Ok sage, I was looking up the obesity data to try and prove you wrong, but I just saw the authority in England with the highest level of obesity is called copeland. Poetic.
And yeah you're right, the UK is a remarkably unhealthy country. But I've never been offered a deep-fried mars bar in england, so there's that.
>>499434>only 24.1 % of people in copeland are a healthy weight
1) what the fuck, have a salad
2) the UK proves itself yet again to be a purely meme country, at this point I'm not sure it actually exists
3) the real reason is these are all ex industrial towns gutted by thatcherism and the working class are more prone to worse diets for a large variety of reasons, availability of food, price of food, time to cook healthy stuff while having to work long hours for shit pay, the stress of being a working class person and needing tasty dopamine hits to.. cope…toxic masculine traditions about eating,
its a sad time which is why we make fun of ourselves. What we really need my fellow bongs is to hug each other from across a well delineated border
I was in complete and utter agreement with you right up until that last sentence. Although I guess independence probably would reduce obesity in scotland, the food shortages and economic collapse would ensure that.
Stop the count , please don’t turn this thread into another independence shitfight. We had a good thing going
Project fear also makes us fat, anon >>499484
My gf made a banging salad the other day with like avocado, edamame, some other leaves, mackerel, feta and with a squeeze of orange juice over it
We're just bitter because our smack is like brick dust compared to that with scotish gear..
Alright, alright, I'll stop.
I'm thinking maybe we could come to a compromise, like giving scotland its own regional government and parliament. And putting some parts of the public sector under control of this new regional government. I'm sure absolutely nothing could go wrong with this sort of arrangement.
Damn nice, I might try, love a bit of mackerel. Shit might pick some on the way home.
It had some other things, maybe google a similar recipe or something
Unique IPs: 53