if it ain't BoZo

[maviczap]

He's great

[garynortheast]

Originally Posted by Seeker

When a comedian makes a satirical skit that is so accurate, so close to the truth, is it still satire or does it become a documentary?

Here's the comedian Tom Walker as the fictional reporter Jonathan Pie doing an interview with the New York Times explaining why we Brits are having a problem with Boris. (Don't watch if you're a Boris fan).

https://tinyurl.com/4cw92wwm

I watched this earlier today. He's just brilliant. Isn't it a sign of just what a bizarre age we are living through, when the most accurate summary of the current situation comes from a comedian.

I've been watching his videos for some time now; the presentation and delivery is laugh out loud stuff but the absolute hitting of the nail on the head makes me want to weep.

[embee]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...-gaffe-russia/

Quote -
The UK Foreign Secretary was mocked by Maria Zakharova, Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, for failing to know the difference between the Baltic and Black seas, which are more than 700 miles apart.

It came as another senior Kremlin official dismissed British diplomacy as “absolutely worthless”.

Truss, who is due to travel to Moscow once she recovers from coronavirus, told the BBC’s Sunday Morning show that “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea”.

Zakharova noted that the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania lie off the Baltic Sea, not the Black Sea, which is hundreds of miles to the south.

“The Baltic countries are called so because they are located precisely off the coast of this [Baltic] sea. Not the Black [Sea],” the Russian official wrote on Facebook. “If anyone needs to be saved from anything, then it is the world from the stupidity and ignorance of Anglo-Saxon politicians.”

It is slightly concerning when Russian political spokespeople can justifiably ridicule UK Government Ministers and no-one can dispute it.

[maviczap]

She's not known as Thick Lizzie for nothing.

You wouldn't want her on The Chase as a team member. But given Bozo isn't the brightest, she can't do any worse than him in the eyes of the Tory members, they're all looking for another Maggie

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by keith_d

If we do get an early general election it'll need the SNP and Labour working together to kick out the Conservatives.

i think that coalitions should be banned. coalitions are how we are in the mess we are in.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Bibio

i think that coalitions should be banned. coalitions are how we are in the mess we are in.

I disagree. For example, coalitions seem to have worked fine in Germany for many years.

The problems are not with coalitions per se but with the attitudes underpinning our party system. 'Party first, country second' is ingrained in our system, enforced by whips, and in need of reform IMHO.

[Craig380]

Coalitions also work in Denmark (and Norway & Sweden) - because of their versions of proportional representation, which means every party has to compromise for the good of the nation. Yes, a lot of talking, but also no single party gets a mandate to do more or less what the hell it wants for 5 years.

[yokohama]

There's an argument that the most important referendum in the UK wasn't the Brexit one but the 2011 vote on PR. Had the outcome of that been different (42% turnout), Brexit would probably never have happened.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by yokohama

There's an argument that the most important referendum in the UK wasn't the Brexit one but the 2011 vote on PR. ...

Yes it was very important but it was also wasted (IMHO): It wasn't close to anything like a proportional representation system really.

If the 2011 referendum had simply asked whether we should ditch the current FPTP system but left the debate about what to replace it with more open then I personally think the result might have been different and it could have been a game changer. But only offering the AV alternative was a problem/mistake - when I worked it through I concluded that it was just a minor variant of FPTP (with the difference that the 'post' is only planted when the 'first' would be carrying over 50% of votes cast). Importantly, there was still next to no chance the minority candidates would get any sort of elected representation in parliament so I didn't see it changing our overall outcomes a great deal.

My current personal position is that the obsession with having a 'majority' is not necessarily a good thing. IMHO, democracy is not the same as majority-rule (or perhaps better put, not the same as mob-rule, which is what it often seems to get distorted to). I want the good ideas to flourish - wherever they come from - not just the dominant ones or the ones shouted out by the loudest idiots.

On the flip side, I'm still not convinced pure proportional representation is automatically a good thing. With our dominant party-opposed system, there's a risk that PR just results in the big players cancelling each other out and the 'power' then being left with the minority who would become the ones with the real ability to sway the balance. So PR itself is not a 'silver bullet' solution, it still needs culture/attitude shift to make it work well, otherwise we could change and end up with a long period of stagnation whilst political classes work that out (because they're all so good at compromise and collaboration aren't they?)

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Craig380

Yes, a lot of talking, but also no single party gets a mandate to do more or less what the hell it wants for 5 years.

Strange isn't it that our system seems to expect the establishment a periodic dictatorship in order for it to be considered as able to work well and yet we call it democratic!