Ship of Fools: Is there anything else happening?

Thread: Is there anything else happening? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029010

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Apart from the bloody UK general election?

Because if you watch the BCC news the rest of the world is not relevant, indeed anything in the UK that is not to do with the GE is not relevant.

All that was on for 1/2 an hour of "news" was freaky lying puppets, lying in all flavours hoping their lies will be seductive enough to make me either love them or hate the others.

While the meretricious BCC talking heads wander smugly about voicing even handed unhelpful platitudes.

I know everyone is lying to me all the time but in a "normal" day I like to think given enough diversity the odd grain of real information might fall through the sieve. This perfect storm of BULLSHIT makes any such discernment impossible.

Only 6 more weeks, pass the hemlock.

[ 31. March 2015, 15:27: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, it is the official start of the campaign. As though we've not heard it all already. I know which way I'd vote (assuming the electoral officer can get me my ballot paper in time for me to actually be sure of the vote counting).

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

What really pisses me off is driving behind local buses plastered with adverts for the bloody Conservative Party. Surely the People's Buses should advertise Labour (or, even better, the only truly socialist party in the UK - which, as enny fule kno, is neither, red, blue or yellow)?

Mind you, it's marginally better than driving behind a bus advertising that well-known comedy band, Mark Reckless And The Kippers......

Ian J.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

Never mind - another six weeks and it'll all be over for another five years ... [Big Grin]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

There are people laughing about missing letters in thread titles. [Razz]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Thing is, if you can redirect the bullshit properly it's a great free way to manure your garden. (Looking forward to the presidential fertilizing coming up soon)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
There are people laughing about missing letters in thread titles.

I would have deleted the thread if there'd been any missing apostrophes...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Or extra one's ...

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

The talk about the US campaign for the November 1916 election has already started here. In six months there will be nothing else and the campaigning in my swing state, Ohio, will have no let-up.

I laugh in your general direction. [Big Grin]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What really pisses me off is driving behind local buses plastered with adverts for the bloody Conservative Party. Surely the People's Buses should advertise Labour (or, even better, the only truly socialist party in the UK - which, as enny fule kno, is neither, red, blue or yellow)?

Sinn Fein don't put up many candidates in our neck of the woods ...

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The talk about the US campaign for the November 1916 election has already started here ...

It's a bit late for that ... [Devil]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The talk about the US campaign for the November 1916 election has already started here. ...

I'll stick my neck out and say Wilson will get in again. In fact I'd put money on it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I do find it depressing, lie upon lie, personal attacks, Farage's voice braying. Maybe I have died and gone to hell.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The two items of good news so far are:
i) that UKIPs support is about 13%, with the Conservatives and Labout very close at 33/34%. The knees of my trousers could well wear through in an effort to keep the Beasts down to that level.
ii) for the next five weeks Sir Humphrey & co are in charge, so I reckon the country is in safer hands than usual, but then I'm biased.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do find it depressing, lie upon lie, personal attacks, Farage's voice braying. Maybe I have died and gone to hell.

Sadly you have not experienced that luxury.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The problem is not that there is an election (which, TBH, is a major news item). the problem is that the politicians we get wheeled up are all lying toads who I have no desire to listen to. In fact, Cameron and Milliband make me want to puke.

Just to be clear, they are all lying, and there is nothing they are saying that has any point whatsoever - they will break promises, they are distorting statistics, they are manipulating you if you listen to them.

So yes, they can all fuck off, and I will concentrate on other things, like the weather and The Voice and anything else. I don't watch the news anyway, because it is tedious and depressing. If you are not interested, just switch off.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

As Twilight mentioned, the US has interminably long expensive campaigns that are gearing up. I too will be inundated with details about Ohio primaries, which is nowhere near where I live.

The only good thing that can happen is that a web site will emerge that covers what the media slices into handy packets of prebiased misinformation. For example, the Nate Silver 538.com on polling for the last couple of elections. I'm going to miss John Stewart and Stephen Colbert political shows on Comedy Central this time around.

One minor help in the stupidity is to read a magazine published in another country. I read the Economist despite not agreeing with their views. It's a bit easier to see the slants, and conversely their coverage of the United States doesn't lie in the same ways that most of the major domestic media do in unison.

My other consolation which I'm saving for later in the campaign is to go and reread "Scoop".

[ 31. March 2015, 17:46: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The talk about the US campaign for the November 1916 election has already started here ...
It's a bit late for that ...

Must you read my posts, Piglet! If only you'd skim past like most people do...

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Because if you watch the BBC news the rest of the world is not relevant, indeed anything in the UK that is not to do with the GE is not relevant.

You could try radio news, though the German plane disaster is still pretty much the leading item.

Alternatively the internet news has headlines you can choose to ignore or click on. So far I've escaped most of the election coverage.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Only six weeks? Posers.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Seriously, why don't we Murkans do some time limitations like the Brits do? It would cut down campaign costs and possibly allow someone who is not a billionaire a chance.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Thank God if you do not live in a swing state. I do, and life is impossible as the election approaches.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Seriously, why don't we Murkans do some time limitations like the Brits do? It would cut down campaign costs and possibly allow someone who is not a billionaire a chance.

Well, it has been geariong up, in shadow form, for a bit longer. this is the first time that the date of a General Election has been known long in advance: until the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was passed in 2010 (at the beginning of this Parliament) the date was essentially for the Prime Minister to choose, so long as it was within the five years that is the maximum that a Parliament can generally last. Now the elections are five years apart unless there is a vote of no confidence in the Commons and there's a procedure laid down for what happens after that.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

It is not NEWS, it is all (even the Green Party) Fascist Propaganda.

STOP LYING, no wonder everyone distrusts politicians. The BBC playing this game is NOT helping.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The (not red, yellow, or blue)Party LYING!

Is Outrage!!

[Ultra confused]

Ian J.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

You know what I would really, really like to see in this election? The SNP getting a bloody nose.

I am very bored already of hearing them crowing about how they are going to play kingmaker and have an influence in Westminster completely disproportionate to the number of people who actually voted for them.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

The only leverage the SNP, or any other minor party or grouping, may have is entirely derived from the inability of the two largest parties to co-operate.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

At least we can vote for these. On the other side of the main lobby are the "Vermin in Ermine" who, whether appointed or not, certainly aren't there on a democratic basis. They are little better than the EU Commission.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The only leverage the SNP, or any other minor party or grouping, may have is entirely derived from the inability of the two largest parties to co-operate.

Hardly surprising; Labour and Tories, despite the degree to which us real lefty pinko commie bastards think they're far too alike, largely each define themselves as "Not the other lot".

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... the "Vermin in Ermine" who, whether appointed or not, certainly aren't there on a democratic basis. .....

Do they need to be, as a revising chamber? Certainly there are academic political scientists who think that they don't need to be, suggesting that there are different types of legitimacy.(e.g. this by a former colleague, who now has a chair in Australia.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... the "Vermin in Ermine" who, whether appointed or not, certainly aren't there on a democratic basis. .....
Do they need to be, as a revising chamber? Certainly there are academic political scientists who think that they don't need to be, suggesting that there are different types of legitimacy.(e.g. this by a former colleague, who now has a chair in Australia.

I'd like them to be representative of the people, though not necessarily of geographical constituencies. Way too many are prime ministerial cronies, financial supporters of political parties, former politicians put out to grass, press barons and, for some unaccountable reason, descendants of brewers (eg, Bass, Guinness, Younger).

Let's have some former generals, captains of industry and judges but I'd like more staff sergeants, managers and JPs to leaven the elitism. Plenty are smart enough to review legislation. I'd definitely have term limits too.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'd agree with you about the staff sergeants and the JPs. Paradoxically you might have found more of those in the hereditary house (well, maybe not staff sergeants, but there was IIRC Detective Sergeant the Earl Nelson, Hertfordshire Police). But the picture of the Lords that you paint is changing- not necessarily for the better, but since they stopped, to all intents and pruposes, giving peerages as plain honours a few years ago, the idea of the Lords as a 'retirement home' is not really what it was.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The only leverage the SNP, or any other minor party or grouping, may have is entirely derived from the inability of the two largest parties to co-operate.

Or indeed to win a majority.

Personally, I'm a bit puzzled by the whole 'if there is a hung parliament the SNP will be lords of all they survey' line taken by the SNP and the Tories. There is one recent example of a party with fifty or so MPs holding the balance of power in a UK parliament in recent years. Behold, I give you the mighty power of The Right Honourable Mr Nicholas Clegg M.P. and the Liberal Democratic Party.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It is not NEWS, it is all (even the Green Party) Fascist Propaganda.

STOP LYING, no wonder everyone distrusts politicians. The BBC playing this game is NOT helping.

Pyx_e, mate, get over it. The BBC is not going to cast you as Rik in a modern day remake of 'The Young Ones', however hard you try.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I have the denim waistcoat

LATEST: Leaders debate tonight which has not happened yet takes up first 10 minutes of NEWS. It's not even news yet!!!!!1

The gibbering cat-shits-string loons.

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
...... and have an influence in Westminster completely disproportionate to the number of people who actually voted for them.

like the current government whose control matches the proportion of people who actually voted for them ?????

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Seriously, why don't we Murkans do some time limitations like the Brits do? It would cut down campaign costs and possibly allow someone who is not a billionaire a chance.

Because it would possibly allow someone who is not a billionare a chance.

God, I'm a pinko.

And Callan, do not cocktease me with visions of a " Young Ones" revival.

[ 02. April 2015, 16:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

For some reason I am reminded of the lads reunion at the Secret Policeman's Ball.

Rik: Where's Vyvian?
Vyvian (VO): I'm backstage shagging Kate Bush! We're using Neil as a contraceptive.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As Twilight mentioned, the US has interminably long expensive campaigns that are gearing up. I too will be inundated with details about Ohio primaries, which is nowhere near where I live.

We know. The political pundits over here will switch to coverage of the US primaries before the dust has settled from the coalition/ cabinet negotiations. As if we could vote!

If Farage gets us out of Europe the UK, or what's left of it, may be the next candidate for becoming the 52nd State.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Meanwhile in the American version

Some Billionaires have just announced they've put together some PAC funding to A network of superPACs claims to have raised 31 million dollars to fund Ted Cruz presidential bid
This is a staggering large amount for a primary, and other candidates are going to react. It's going to be a long, loud and expensive clown car circus.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

As well as the UK election (now only a month away)...

...there's the announcement of two Republican candidacies for the US presidential election that's 18 months away...

...and an intra-party (indeed, intra-familial) spat in the French Front National, regarding (as far as I can tell) a candidacy for the next legislative election, which is over two years away.

So I think our UK election news is rather timely!

t

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It is not NEWS, it is all (even the Green Party) Fascist Propaganda.

STOP LYING, no wonder everyone distrusts politicians. The BBC playing this game is NOT helping.

Well, I'm with you on that one. And one problem is the lack of investigative journalism. Mostly, British broadsheets (and their gutter press for that matter) are nothing other than propaganda machines for one or the other party. All they do is take the lie of their favourite candidate and give it an extra bit of spin. With those they don't like they get personal, i.e. play the (wo)man and not the ball.

I have no problem with newspapers having a general political slant, but when they are so tribal that they never as much scrutinise the consistency of those standing for office, try to uncover their lies or corroborate facts before piping up (Sturgeon's mythic Frenchgate, anyone?), the our democracy is well and truly on the rocks. There's no point paying for newspapers like that, as I can get my conspiracy theories for free on the internet.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, internet conspiracy theorists are entertaining.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

And you can freely disseminate your own conspiracy theories online, without going to the trouble and expense of owning a newspaper.
[Biased]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although, you must remember that internet conspiracy theorists are actually all in the employ of Rupert Murdoch. It's a clever ploy to lend credibility to Fox News.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

Good to see that George Galloway is keeping things classy, though. link

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Alan--

Oh, but you missed the secret meeting the other night! Murdoch's finally realized that most people will never trust Fox cable news enough to even believe a conspiracy theory.

Evidently, he's going to turn Fox into a smart phone game: any time a character lies about the news, you throw a rolled up newspaper at the anchor desk, the desk starts spinning around, and an assortment of exorcists arrives to guide them back to the straight and narrow path.

Murdoch's giving the proceeds to charity. He's going to be a hermit in remote wilderness, far away from any media at all. (He's found the via media. [Biased]

Middle way.)

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Well, it seems as though we should be able to accurately predict the outcome by means of a swift board poll on the Ship. Might be possible to make a few bob at the bookies' based on the outcome.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Ship's poll, currently located in the Circus would suggest we're a more lefty lot than that.

I knew there was some reason I like most of the people here [Biased]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Sorry - I'd missed that. (self-flagellates)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Ship's poll, currently located in the Circus would suggest we're a more lefty lot than that.

I knew there was some reason I like most of the people here

The survey passer linked to showed that the CofE is further to the right than other denominations. To be surprised that the Ship is further to the left than that would only make sense to someone suffering the delusion that this is an Anglican website.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

ITTWAAWS.

The Conservative party on it's knees where as many here would like to bring the Conservative party to its knees.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Wonder why Anglicans would be necessarily more to the political right than other denominations (or, indeed than non-church people) - especially given the wide range of C of E congregations, from lower than a snake's belly to hovering so high on the candle they've never even seen the wax.

[ 15. April 2015, 18:17: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's the evils of Constantinianism.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Also, the survey makes no mention of how active these people are in the church. I am the most left-wing of three sisters and the only regular churchgoer, but both my sisters would describe themselves as Anglicans too.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

There's this for a start. The bloody awful Richard 'Dirty' Desmond has donated a million pounds to UKIP.

In addition to the Daily and Sunday Express his firm publishes the Star titles, which are in direct competition with the Sun, OK! and Now! Looking at what he used to publish, that represents a move upmarket.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's this for a start. The bloody awful Richard 'Dirty' Desmond has donated a million pounds to UKIP.

Apparently, this was a bit of a surprise turn. But for me still not as surprising as the way the Daily Express describes itself as the 'world's best newspaper' on its masthead without a trace of irony.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[qb] There's this for a start. The bloody awful [URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32340976]But for me still not as surprising as the way the Daily Express describes itself as the 'world's best newspaper' on its masthead without a trace of irony.

I agree, except it's "The world's greatest newspaper."

IIRC it was actually awarded the title in either 1999 or 2000 as greatest newspaper of the millennium or something in the press awards, or a poll of journalists, or something.

More specifically it was referring to the Daily Express of the 1950s and 60s, and people sometimes forget how genuinely, globally, groundbreaking that paper then was. For a good decade it ploughed a cutting edge furrow as neither a broadsheet nor a tabloid (although it was broadsheet format) but a completely socially, intellectually, and coverage-wise alternative to both. Basically it was a right of centre mirror of the then Manchester Guardian.

Of course, it's since been hollowed out and engaged in a fight to the death with the Daily Heil, but it's worth pausing a moment to feel genuine sadness at the destruction of a once-great newspaper IMHO. That banner of "world's greatest newspaper" should be seen as more of an epitaph and censure - personally I'm glad it's there, because it reminds me every time I pass a newsstand of what successive owners have done to it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, the survey makes no mention of how active these people are in the church. I am the most left-wing of three sisters and the only regular churchgoer, but both my sisters would describe themselves as Anglicans too.

And levels of activity do make a difference: this is very illuminating.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree, except it's "The world's greatest newspaper."

Silly, silly. The World's Greatest Newspaper is the Chicago Tribune, as any fule kno.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Surely it's the Daily Planet.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Ship's poll, currently located in the Circus would suggest we're a more lefty lot than that.

I knew there was some reason I like most of the people here
The survey passer linked to showed that the CofE is further to the right than other denominations. To be surprised that the Ship is further to the left than that would only make sense to someone suffering the delusion that this is an Anglican website.

That said, maybe the Anglicans are boarding us [Two face]

- on the aforementioned Circus-very-scientific-Ship-opinion-poll, the Tories have been noticably catching up on the more to the left parties over the last couple of days (for the sake of brevity/laziness/tradition/whatever I'm including Labour as one of these, even though any fule kno that's not the case - they are a bit more Left than the Tories).

(Pointless but amusing aside; Sky's Election coverage trailer - some of the party leaders singing "And I Swear". It's been really well done.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
(Pointless but amusing aside; Sky's Election coverage trailer - some of the party leaders singing "And I Swear". It's been really well done.)

Why is it only the blokes? Don't the lassies get a say?

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

I think the original was by "Boys II Men", which I assumed was part of the joke.

- or maybe they're going with the media script that adds UKIP into the category "mainstream party", but leaves out Plaid, SNP, and the Greens, who have more members than UKIP and more than LibDem.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0