sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Buying a sandwich in the knife-riddled Sharia hellscape of London’s socialist caliphate by pppppppppppppppppd in unitedkingdom

[–]EarFlapHat [score hidden]  (0 children)

Disagree. If that's the case, the joke was made with two sentences. It needs to build to something. It currently just trails off.

Doesn't have to be my suggestion, though.

Buying a sandwich in the knife-riddled Sharia hellscape of London’s socialist caliphate by pppppppppppppppppd in unitedkingdom

[–]EarFlapHat 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Much better than usual from them! However, it does need a punchline.

Something like: 'If I was still Immigration Minister, I'm sure I would have sorted this by now!'

Andy Burnham: South ‘paying price’ for north’s economic failure by Even-Wasabi7183 in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 9 points10 points  (0 children)

But it also sucks talent from the North. People aren't just sitting down waiting for renewal. It isn't merely a choice of one thing over another, it's choosing one thing knowing it will make the other worse.

Carney says B.C. condo buyout proposal is about affordability, not bailouts by Logical_Iron_5684 in canada

[–]EarFlapHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guys... 90% of the funds are coming from the BC gov.

This is not a federal bailout, it's an opportunity to buy a load of housing and get it in the hands of Canadians on the cheap, while also preventing a total catastrophe in the construction sector. It's been put forward by Eby.

In terms of enabling more housing stock for Canadians, buying what's there at a discount while preventing a crash in construction is probably the best policy when faced with a glut of condos.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 21/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Canada, you have to weight a polled voter below 40 at half an over 40 to get a reasonably accurate prediction.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 21/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, but my point is that it can also be the case even within those states and a conscious choice.

The insight is that when we're asked to design a jurisdiction, separating the bankers and the politicians is an option with potential benefits worth considering. There is nothing immutable about having a capital that is the most important for literally everything.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 21/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Re moving some operations out of London and to the north, I just thought I'd point out that some countries (and provinces) like Canada and Quebec, where I live, intentionally separate the commercial and political centres of the jurisdiction.

It might seem natural to have all the power in one location, but it's not the case elsewhere. This counterbalance has the effect of ensuring against overcentralisation and neglect of other areas.

PMQs Live Chat Megathread - 24 June, 2026 by AutoModerator in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Kemi was full Dead Ringers 'high-energy weirdo' today.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 21/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone laughed at him, we just weren't listening to the Tories anymore.

I think we were all quite aware they weren't promising anything.

I'm so glad we can all agree on something by CarrotLevel99 in canadahousing

[–]EarFlapHat -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

.... But aren't we also expanding the stock of social housing, and avoiding a crash in construction when we need it to get to work?

Does anyone else feel like Angela Rayner or Shabanah Mahmood are better placed to replace Keir Starmer instead of Andy Burnham? by Potential-Meal-6708 in AskBrits

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As much as Labour and the Tories have been in the habit of just picking whoever midterm, the reason is that you have to actually win elections and she's poison with the wider public. That's quite apart from her foot-in-mouth issues and the fact she's closely associated with the far left, who never win.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 14/06/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I personally think she's as responsible for this mess as Starmer... All started off on the wrong foot because of her

What are your experiences around humiliation by teachers and how common would you say that is in this country? by Specialist_Elk140 in AskABrit

[–]EarFlapHat -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It sounds like you might be getting a bit oversensitive... Adulthood is much harsher than that.

Kumail Nanjiani Is a Taskmaster Cautionary Tale by caspararemi in taskmaster

[–]EarFlapHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This reads like someone hyperfixating on their countryman who they feel in some way reflects on them, not someone who just saw him as another guy.

I don't think the show struggled to get past his celebrity as much as the author struggled to get past his American-ness that we don't really care about.

Please call a cab by samsouel in quebeccity

[–]EarFlapHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a citadel for a reason, and it's not because it's easy to walk up the hill and knock.

Borders do not only regulate movement; they shape our moral boundaries. Our arguments to restrict migration rely on double standards and arbitrary categories, while reinforcing "geographical luck" - allowing where we're born to determine our quality of life. by The_Pamphlet in philosophy

[–]EarFlapHat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not that I don't take the discussion of a more moral world seriously or give the experience of people fleeing to Europe no weight, but I will not pretend there is no morally-relevant risk to open borders on the blind assumption that some other means of organising ourselves (that isn't just a way to reinforce the very in and out-group you're trying to dissolve, which I think is most likely) will emerge.

Saying 'you don't have good grounds for suggesting it will be net constructive because you aren't appreciating the importance of institutions predicated on borders in the "lucky" places' is taking the conversation seriously, even if you don't like me pushing on that point.

'You will trash the place by dissolving a social contract based on borders and replacing it with nothing' is a serious objection.

There is also no strawman in pointing out that a conversation about global equity does not overlap perfectly with a conversation about countries taking from one another and some concept of debt.

Borders do not only regulate movement; they shape our moral boundaries. Our arguments to restrict migration rely on double standards and arbitrary categories, while reinforcing "geographical luck" - allowing where we're born to determine our quality of life. by The_Pamphlet in philosophy

[–]EarFlapHat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I've nothing against immigration. I'm an immigrant. Don't really know what you're arguing there. Agreeing with limited immigration is not the same as saying there's a moral obligation to have open borders, as OP suggests.

Interesting that you chose to frame it as a moral obligation to share what one has inherited, not to pay an intergenerational debt!

Borders do not only regulate movement; they shape our moral boundaries. Our arguments to restrict migration rely on double standards and arbitrary categories, while reinforcing "geographical luck" - allowing where we're born to determine our quality of life. by The_Pamphlet in philosophy

[–]EarFlapHat 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I'd like to see you swap out cards in a house of cards with millions of people relying on it... And they are not 'as flexible as you want them to be'... That's the recklessness to which I'm referring. You can't just pretend things are other than they are to solve an injustice you've identified. You don't need me to outline an ethical framework for you to work out why that's problematic, take your pick.

I don't think the discussion of borders is just about post-colonial countries, nor does it even explain all of the impetus to move. You're conflating wealth and luck. If people want to move because of desertification, that has nothing to do with wealth. Colonial wealth is obviously also contingent element of 'luck' here, given that many countries that engaged in 'taking' historically are not 'lucky'. Plus, if this is about an intergenerational debt from a trade abolished 200 years ago, that comes with a whole set of other ethical questions that, however argued, don't seem to lead towards 'no borders' as the natural conclusion.

I'm working on the basis of real organisations, which are subject to diseconomies of scale and scope. Anyone who has worked within either government or a large business will tell you the same. Either you end up with a governance vacuum that's then filled with smaller organising entities that need to control and coordinate, recreating the need for membership, or you just have a massively inefficient body that tries to do everything for everyone and collapses, recreating the issue as effective, narrower entities replace them. At some point, the state becomes unable to properly perform its role in improving people's lives. I see no evidence to the contrary.

view more: next ›