Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:54 am

Frislander wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:16 am

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:04 amThat said, does the Brexit Pary have one?

I don't think the BP would even really exist if its supporters weren't ultimately aiming for Farage in No. 10.

Yeah, but given that he isn't even running for the House of Commons...

I thought the idea that the PM has to be a sitting MP was just a matter of precedent that isn't actually codified or anything.

For what it's worth, elsewhere on the internet, I just saw my first "Are you Brexit-ready?"-themed ad.

Frislander wrote:I thought the idea that the PM has to be a sitting MP was just a matter of precedent that isn't actually codified or anything

I think s, but then again much of the moanrchy's lack of power is also just convention rather than law, and if the convention was to break there could be civil war. Convention can be a powerful thing.

It's just about conceivable that the PM could be a member of the House of Lords, in extraordinary and temporary circumstances. (like, if Gordon Brown suddenly died, and his deputy was Lord Mandelson, maybe Mandelson could have been a caretaker PM while they conducted a new leadership election).

It's almost inconceivable that they could not be in parliament at all, although again there are conceivable situations. Like, I don't know, in the above scenario Mandelson steps down from the Lords in order to run for election in a safe seat a month later, he could conceivably remain PM for the interim.

In the case of someone like Farage, though, it would be far more likely that he would simply nominate an official PM from among his MPs, and appoint himself 'grand paramount leader and protector of the nation' or something.

As the NHS reports is worst ever waiting times, Labour and the Tories debate the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiqg60L9wWk And we can see which of the two funds better the NHS: https://twitter.com/HealthFdn/status/11 ... 0820629504.

The NHS certainly has the potential to be a wildcard in this election. It's one thing a lot of people care about as much or more than Brexit. If the system were to obviously buckle in places before election day, it could put a dent in the Tory numbers. My worry is that it'll limp on until we get into true winter season, and the crisis that's obviously coming this winter will be the first thing the new BJ government has to deal with. And given that the members of that government are mostly useless, evil or even in one case treasonous...

I see what you mean.

Here are some looking to oust Johnson from his own constituency? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-johnson To what extent could they be successful? What happens if they are successful but the Tories get a majority nonetheless? Another Tory leadership election?

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:22 am I see what you mean.

Here are some looking to oust Johnson from his own constituency? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... is-johnson To what extent could they be successful? What happens if they are successful but the Tories get a majority nonetheless? Another Tory leadership election?

It's impossible, because Boris Is Indestructible. But if it did happen, the Conservative Party would indeed have to elect a new leader.

alice wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:35 am It's impossible, because Boris Is Indestructible. But if it did happen, the Conservative Party would indeed have to elect a new leader.

There have been suggestions that, if that happens, the leader just gets someone loyal and stupid to stand aside and trigger a by-election they can win.

That isn't what I hope for, though. I hope that Johnson loses his seat AND that the Tories will get votes than Labour and the SNP, my own choice, shall increase their seat share. But Johnson not being leader might be a schadenfreude slight silver lining to a Tory win.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:22 pm

alice wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:35 am It's impossible, because Boris Is Indestructible. But if it did happen, the Conservative Party would indeed have to elect a new leader.

There have been suggestions that, if that happens, the leader just gets someone loyal and stupid to stand aside and trigger a by-election they can win.

As far as I can tell, it's never happened before in the UK; closest would be someone standing down in favor of Arthur Balfour so he could be Leader of the Opposition after he lost in 1906. It's happened in Canada a couple times, though.

History repeats itself. The Lib Dems have repeatedly ruled out any deal with Labour or even providing minimal support to a minority Labour government in exchange for almost anything, but it seems like they'd be happy to do a deal with Boris if it got them a second referendum:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50497282

At least this makes a bit more sense than their previous position, which was that they wouldn't work with anyone. If they had won a hundred seats and then proceeded to vote against both Labour and the Conservatives on everything then government would have ground to a halt. But the fact that apparently they'd rather work with their arch-enemies on the policy that supposedly matters to them most (Brexit) than with Labour says a lot.

There's been a lot of focus recently on the YouGov MRP poll/model, which predicts a Conservative majority of 68:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-majority

At the same time, the Lib Dems seem to be shedding support, either as pro-Remain ex-Conservatives waver, or as some anti-Brexit voters decide to vote tactically for Labour.

I only hope that the forecast is wrong, and that the result is closer than predicted. Given the ideological purge of the Conservative party, if Boris has a majority of that size he'll be able to do whatever the hell he likes. The only hope of sanity if he wins is if his majority is small enough for almost every vote to count, so he's forced to compromise with other factions or parties. If he can just steam-roller the moderates in his party, then we're doomed into a race to the bottom led by the kind of people who wrote this steaming pile of excrement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained

“The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.”

(speaking of Britannia Unchained) I've never understood how deregulation advocates can exist outside the United States. All they need to do is look at the arch-deregulators across the Atlantic to see that it isn't a good idea. It's as if they're watching someone die slowly of lung cancer, and advocating everybody smoke more cigarettes. Surely the failure of the United States should demonstrate to the world the weakness of laissez faire economics.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:34 am (speaking of Britannia Unchained) I've never understood how deregulation advocates can exist outside the United States. All they need to do is look at the arch-deregulators across the Atlantic to see that it isn't a good idea. It's as if they're watching someone die slowly of lung cancer, and advocating everybody smoke more cigarettes. Surely the failure of the United States should demonstrate to the world the weakness of laissez faire economics.

That assumes these people see it as a failure - once you realise that the people advocating this stuff are the ones who stand to gain from such a situation then suddenly on go the rose-tinted goggles because what's good for me is good for everyone else right? Also I've long stopped trusting the Tories to argue for this stuff in good faith.

chris_notts wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:33 pm There's been a lot of focus recently on the YouGov MRP poll/model, which predicts a Conservative majority of 68:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-majority

At the same time, the Lib Dems seem to be shedding support, either as pro-Remain ex-Conservatives waver, or as some anti-Brexit voters decide to vote tactically for Labour.

I only hope that the forecast is wrong, and that the result is closer than predicted. Given the ideological purge of the Conservative party, if Boris has a majority of that size he'll be able to do whatever the hell he likes. The only hope of sanity if he wins is if his majority is small enough for almost every vote to count, so he's forced to compromise with other factions or parties. If he can just steam-roller the moderates in his party, then we're doomed into a race to the bottom led by the kind of people who wrote this steaming pile of excrement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Unchained

“The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.”

In the last general election, the 20-point gap in the polls was closed to a 2-point one in the election. The actual result was higher than poll average for the previous day. This time looks like it's going in a similar direction, but with the Tories having a smaller lead to start with.

I'm sure I'm not alone as well in being confused about the Conservatives floating a number of interventionist economic policies, such as increased state aid outside the EU. I struggle to believe that they're serious about this stuff as long-term policy given that the hard right is ascendent in the party, but it could be either a means to an end for this particular election (get Brexit over the line using ex-Labour votes and then row back later), or that there's at least one person smart enough to realise that the massive economic dislocation of a minimal deal with the EU at the end of 2020 would require some extra ammo in the short-term, or both.

Or it could just be that where Trump goes, Boris follows, and this is a genuine transformation of the Tories from Thatcher's party to one with a much heavier emphasis on social policy and nationalism and less interest in free markets. But if that's the case, the authors of Britannia Unchained will have to eat their words.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:34 am (speaking of Britannia Unchained) I've never understood how deregulation advocates can exist outside the United States. All they need to do is look at the arch-deregulators across the Atlantic to see that it isn't a good idea. It's as if they're watching someone die slowly of lung cancer, and advocating everybody smoke more cigarettes. Surely the failure of the United States should demonstrate to the world the weakness of laissez faire economics.

As much as I agree that deregulation is utter BS (locally, I need only to compare Hydro One in Ontario and Hydro-Québec to get the gist of why), I can see why some people might think otherwise.

First, the effects of deregulation take time to appear. While Reaganomics and Thatcherism has been going on for nearly four decades now, their impact (impoverishment of a section of the population) took a full generation to appear in the radars.

Second, not all suffer from deregulation. Just look at the mean income per capita in the US, and it is still high. I suspect many politicians hope that the plurality (majorities are not needed) of their constituents will gain (or at least think they will gain) from it. Still, it might lead to the Anglo-Quebecker effect : your mean/median income may be higher than the general population, you're still twice as likely to be poor.

(The cause of that effect for Anglo-Quebeckers is not deregulation but most probably language proficiency. It's the effect of not speaking the majority language. In Quebec, it is compounded by the fact executives can be transplanted locally without knowing any of the local language, relying on local bilingual employees to bridge the language gap. Classic wealth/capital gaps can easily cause the same, as has been shown time and again.)

Third, there's probably a lot of wishful thinking. Because we ourselves, individually, can control ourselves in not being assholes to our peers (yeah right /sarcasm), organizations can also do it without much oversight so need no rules. The premise of self-control is strongly believed among certain groups and there's probably a misplaced belief that we are in total control ourselves and that those who "fail" are just the scum of humanity, and even if that were true, it cannot imply it would still hold on organizations.

So, tl;dr, deregulation is most probably BS as fuck, but there are many ways we can fool ourselves in still believing it works anyway.

I think there's also a sense in which regulation is implicated in a particularly modern disease, which is the decline of state capacity and the ability of anybody (not just the state, but particularly the state) to build. Here's a selection of projects from the early and mid-20th century:

* The Empire State Building was completed in thirteen and a half months and came in costing two-thirds of its $60M budget--the equivalent of $560M today. It remained the tallest building on earth for four decades.

* Hoover Dam was completed in five years--less, given that the first two years involved diverting the entirety of the Colorado River before construction could happen. It cost $49M, or about $670M today.

* The Golden Gate Bridge took four years to build from start to finish and came in over a million dollars under its $37M (2019: about $520M) budget.

* The Zion-Mount Carmel Highway in Zion National Park includes a tunnel over a mile long straight through a mountain. It took three years and $503K, or just over eight million dollars today.

Compare:

* Boston's Big Dig took a quarter century to build, including nine years of planning. It was projected to cost $5.8 billion; cost overruns nearly quadrupled this figure. Despite the expense, the end result was plagued by leaks, a ceiling collapse, and additional traffic deaths.

Now, the first four projects here came at a cost. Six people died building the Empire State Building, and well over a hundred on the Hoover Dam; all the deaths associated with the Big Dig were secondary and not on the site.

But it's frankly impossible to imagine anything being built like this today. We can't build mass transit. We can't build railroads or highways and can barely build skyscrapers. We create pipe-dream plans for an electric high-speed rail line from LA to SF and hope that it might be operable by 2040--the Roosevelt or Eisenhower administrations would have had the thing planned, dug and built within a decade at most. Some combination of graft-by-other-means, procedural morass, regulatory capture and other illnesses of modern governance have robbed us of our ability to do anything. It's not just the public sector. We can't build apartment buildings; there's too much regulatory capture of zoning and other rules by established interests. At some point, safety stops being a workable excuse--you can always make construction safer if you don't build anything!

Deregulatory enthusiasm on the right and the revival of socialism on the left are, I think, to some extent two sides of the same coin. They represent nostalgia for an era when the awesome powers of capital and the state were turned to remake the world, build monuments to the ages, rebuild cities in their entirety every two decades. The men of the early 20th century built things to last. We, by contrast, run up ten-figure bills for piddly little bridges and tunnels and look at the projects of the 1930s and 1940s the way the people of late antiquity looked at the aqueducts and colosseums around them: how did they do it? They must have been gods; we can't pull it off.

(It is true, of course, that many factions with a thing for deregulation have also been implicated in the destruction of state capacity. But it's not just a problem with conservatives; contemporary New York and California can't build anything, either. Whatever it is seems to be orthagonal to regular left vs. right.)

Part of me wonders though whether going back to the days of Lunch atop a Skyscraper really is a good idea though.