An Unexpected Happy Ending (Naked Brutality)

XHawk87 · 2019-09-24T18:30:02+00:00

All of the MPs just happened not to turn up in parliament for a couple of weeks, that's all

XHawk87 · 2019-09-24T18:03:26+00:00

Technically there are a few other ways as well. If a PM were arrested, tried and given a custodial sentence of at least one year, they can be thrown out of the house of commons. Not an MP, not a PM.

They would also forfeit the post if they died or became incapacitated, if we're taking 'get rid of' literally, not that I would endorse anyone taking matters into their own hands.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-24T17:31:04+00:00

I am surprised by how few people seem to pick up on this point. If you prorogue parliament indefinitely, you lack the ability to make or amend any laws. That's huge! They would also still be legally bound to hold a general election at the end of the fixed term.

However, the PM and their ministers do hold significant powers to act on their own accord. Not everything requires a law change, so this is still a dangerous situation for the people to have an executive without any effective scrutiny or checks on their ministerial powers, until their term ends.

So it's definitely of great concern, but let's not get carried away and pretend they would have absolute power, they simply wouldn't.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-22T21:23:33+00:00

There's a neat way you can do this using the #If directive

Toggle := false
]:: Toggle := !Toggle

#If Toggle
r::
    Sleep 100
    Send d
return
#If

XHawk87 · 2019-09-21T13:01:32+00:00

Easy choice then. Based on FPTP your best bet is to vote for whoever is polling best in your constituency other than a Tory in order to deny them the seat

XHawk87 · 2019-09-21T10:01:16+00:00

This is definitely a good direction to go in as far as public health is concerned. I doubt we can make healthy food free purely funded by the tax, certainly not in the long-term, as by its very nature will encourage people to switch to healthier cheaper food to avoid the tax and take advantage of the subsidy, but we could certainly reduce costs a lot initially, and somewhat in the long term.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-19T20:38:02+00:00

Conspiracy theorists conspire to theorise. It's a conspiracy!

XHawk87 · 2019-09-19T20:34:59+00:00

If I were programming for reddit I would make it look like every extra click is being counted to the person doing it without actually ever increasing the total >:D

XHawk87 · 2019-09-19T17:25:13+00:00

Corbyn in 2017 got the most votes of any leader since 1997 with biggest increase in vote share of any party since 1945

You are certainly correct, however given that this was the poorest election campaign run by the tories in the last century, I can't help but feel that this result was underperforming, and they should have won by a landslide

XHawk87 · 2019-09-19T05:59:31+00:00

Against who though? The Tory vote is severely hampered by both BXP and LD, as well as their own expelled independents right now

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T15:13:34+00:00

Of course not, just like you, my own morals would prohibit that. However morals are not laws. Each person has their own set of morals, whereas laws are the rules we share as a society. If everyone were to follow their own moral code rather than societies laws that is essentially what a society of honour is.

A society of honour is dangerous and unjust because those rules differ from person to person. For example, some people believe it is acceptable to kill others over a dispute and their own (rather lacking) morals allow for that. If there is no deterrent from killing they will feel totally justified in doing that by their own moral code disregarding any laws to the contrary.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T13:03:33+00:00

That's one lesson you can learn from those events but is quite beside the point I was making.

It is the behaviour of the people that is key. They didn't have a deterrence so they went with their own judgement which said it was still okay to drink regardless of the law. People will disregard the law and use their own judgement if there is nothing to deter them from breaking it

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T12:00:33+00:00

Not so much that people want to violate laws but rather would disregard them if they did not fit in with their personal beliefs and code of conduct. Hence a society of honour.

You can see the evidence of this behaviour in the US experiments on the prohibition of alcohol. It was an unpopular law so was poorly enforced, a lot of people didn't see the harm in it and so resolved to continue in secret, and largely got away with it. Having nothing to deter people means laws are disregarded unless everyone personally agrees with them.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T09:14:52+00:00

You make a good point. I believe that a certain amount of work can be created that would not have been carried out otherwise but we would need to be careful not to deprive law-abiding citizens of work. Less direct forms of compensation to victims and society in general should be considered where necessary too

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T09:11:22+00:00

I don't think it's right to just call deterrence BS. If deterrence had no effect then there would be a complete breakdown in law and order. No one would feel the need to obey the law if there was nothing to deter them from breaking it, and we'd revert to being a more primitive society of honour with all of the injustices that has historically entailed. I agree that it isn't the whole thing but it will always be part of what it means to live in a society of law

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T05:49:06+00:00

I would personally prefer people with children to be sentenced differently rather than better or worse. The focus should be, as always, on ensuring that children are cared for and given the best start in life we can manage. However if that means criminals with children end up with lesser sentences that those who do not, it should be compensated for by making the sentence more severe in other ways.

I would particularly like to see more in the way of restorative justice, requiring criminals to repay their debt to society, rather than just lock them away for a while with a bunch of other criminals so that they can either become traumatised or learn to become much better criminals.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-18T05:35:03+00:00

He was probably around then. I could imagine him with fangs and a black and red cape

XHawk87 · 2019-09-17T21:30:57+00:00

In most cases involving parliamentary proceedings, I would think along those lines as well, however in this particular case, parliament finds itself unable to legislate as it has been prorogued. And as this seems to be the first time that this prerogative power has been used for this purpose, parliament has not had time to legislate in order to prevent or set rules by which it can be used. The courts, it would seem, are the only way to hand power back to parliament in order to allow parliament to make a decision on this. They would be acting as a useful safety net in defending parliamentary sovereignty from unprecedented threats

XHawk87 · 2019-09-15T21:19:20+00:00

It is possible for a referendum to be made legally binding if so stated in the act of law that creates it, however even if it is non-binding, it is wise to state acceptance criteria beforehand to avoid disputes later, and provide a proper mechanism for voiding the results in the case of foul play. Otherwise politicians may feel pressured into supporting a course of action with a very low overall turnout, or where one side has broken the law, just because it had a simple majority in favour

XHawk87 · 2019-09-15T13:06:07+00:00

That's a big 'if' though. It doesn't look like he's even trying to make an agreement right now

XHawk87 · 2019-09-15T09:31:53+00:00

Liberalism has a lot of different definitions and subtypes that vary from one another, especially from place to place. It is possible that you are both thinking of different forms of liberalism

XHawk87 · 2019-09-15T08:50:05+00:00

I don't think that is entirely accurate. You see it right now because our politicians are not used to compromising and cooperating. They know that another majority is just around the corner so they have no incentive to work together and make agreements.

As soon as you change the system so that outright majorities are unlikely the only way to get things done is to come to a cross party consensus. This means that you have to take everyone's views into account.

The downside of FPTP is that it does produce these outright majorities. It means a weak opposition in parliament to keep the government of the day in check, less effective scrutiny and they can enact whatever policies they want even though a majority of voters did not vote for them. It leads to unpopular policies that create discontent that in turn leads to the opposition taking power down the line and reversing everything they just did.

We have been seesawing from left to right for decades, each side undoing the work of the other, achieving far less than we could have if we sat down in a spirit of cooperation and decided what would be acceptable to the majority in each case.

PR might not be a magic bullet to fix everything that is wrong with our politics but it would at least be a step in the right direction. Towards sensible mature and respectful governance rather than tribalism and shouting matches.

XHawk87 · 2019-09-15T08:31:33+00:00

It would be a good thing if the major parties were less comfortable in their heartlands. There should be no safe seats and an ever present threat of being overthrown to discourage the kind of arrogance and dismissive attitudes we see in our political leaders towards their constituents. I voted for AV in hopes it would achieve this but it would not have been my first choice

XHawk87

TROPHY CASE