Talk:Liz Truss
|
This British politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Britishism?[edit]
Is "getting to fuck" an actual Britishism for "fuck off", or just a typo? Google search on the phrase turns up pr0n. Bongolian (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it might be a Scottish-ism, I remember hearing it in a show Dara O'Briain did in Edinburgh. (https://youtu.be/LmbcIfi2_PA?t=136 - 2:15 in the video.) EWH (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
can confirm, scots for "fuck off". As a side note, any considerations relating to sexual activities seem to be focusing on the BDSM-style O-ring necklace ("day-collar") which are making the rounds as a running joke on social media and reportedly in newsrooms too. Mentioning it here until it inevitably hits the main page. --Lurio (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- have to say, ive not heard it phrased quite like. get to fuck - yes. getting to fuck - no. it just sounds weird. sounds weird without the appropriate accent. sounds weird like british swears said by americans and in an american accent. it does really work here. for one thing its brexit is the uk getting out of europe, not europe getting out the uk. its also a very reactive way of telling someone to fuck off and a very force full way of saying. as if someone has just suddenly intruded on your personal space, and you want them to back off, right now, with no discussion, with heavily implied if they do not - 'get to fuck' said a you raise a fist strongly. also said reflexively in shocked disbelief of something - so shocked its blurted out quickly and without thinking and it comes out as not quite how you phrase it if you took a second to think about it. at least when ever i hear it is along those line. it only really works with a scottish or maybe an irish accent - i learnt to swear in essex and different rules apply.
- at any rate its obscure enough outside of scotland that seeing it written down in standard english, with nothing to suggest a scottish accent that would tell us what was intended, and phrased in a way that obscures it even further, that i think most people will be confused by the line and, like bongolian, wonder if its a typo, wonder if 'fuck off' meant or did they miss something and have to re read the whole bit and it still not sound right. also brexit effects all of the uk. a uniquely scottish phrase (phrased weirdly) is a out of place here, disconnecting it from what precedes it in the article, and from all that follows by its inclusion (though be fair thats true of the whole article, reading like a disjointed list rather a cohesive article with a natural flow - possibly down to article acting like a live blog right now) and out of place because scotland voted to remain within the eu and very much is not telling it to 'get to fuck'.
- it would be better placed indyref2 for the inevitable break up of the uk AMassiveGay (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
human rights, the bill of vs the act[edit]
while im here im going to bitch about us not quite understanding what the human rights act and the bill of rights actually are and what do and/or supposed to do because sound bites miss why the tories wanted the act gone, and why the bill of rights has been parked.
firstly the human rights act. the purpose of the act is to enshrine european convention of human rights into law fulfilling our convention obligations. the rights contained in the act are the convention rights. the act allows for british courts to make rulings based on these rights, any laws britain makes must not breach these rights and must proactively work to ensure they do not and any breachs of these rights must be corrected as soon as. it gives the right to challenge british law on the basis of them breaching the convention rights in in british courts. importantly britain is obligated to abide by the european court on human rights for the convention obligations. the court and the convention are creations of the council of europe of which we are member, and as eu member we where obliged to implement the convention and abide by ECtHR rulings as part of our obligations within the eu. the rights in the act not a labour creation and while the act was passed with a labour government, while an eu member the tories would most likely have had to pass something pretty much identical.
now out of the eu, we have no obligations to them concerning the convention, only obligations to the convention itself. the bill of rights seeks to redefine uk's relationship to convention and restore the primacy of parliament. all the convention rights that were in the human rights act are still there, with added processes like those concerning deportation of foreign criminals for example. whats different is that european court's judgements cannot override parliament, the courts cannot rule according based the european courts judgements, laws and organisations are not required to be compatible with the convention, hurdles have been put in place limiting access the courts in disputes over rights, and ultimately it is parliament that decides what our rights are. the euro court is stll there, but through a ton of legalese that makes my head spin, harder to acccess and easier to ignore and still somehow meet convention obligations to accept its ruling. it did not directly remove any rights that was in the human rights act, because parliament would be sovereign over these rights, the bill of rights could not contain any rights that an act of parliament could not remove according to whims of a government with a working majority.
its been shelved for now because removing the echr (while not removing it) has been really difficult apparently to do and not be a fucking huge mess and not put all our rights at risk. it has no significance to truss or the actions of her government that she has shelved it. its not even boris's baby, cameron floated it in 2007 and has been in the works since the tories could do away with the coalition. (ill wont prolong the rant to say why this bill was bullshit to begin with, just baby is being thrown out with bath water) truss's only involvement was to cancel it because that was all that could be done with the fucking mess it is whatever her views on human rights maybe. its dishonest to put any spin, positive or negative, on truss's motives when the bill simply was not in a state requiring an ideological judgement, its dishonest to dismiss out hand any possibility of a positive motive and only describe criticisms of a bill which she had nothing to do with, criticisms that are pulled out of someones arse, sound bites from the opposition, or damaging red herrings like the creasy's suggestion to include abortion no doubt knowing full well it could not be done, that it would require a commitee in its own right to work out the details with the compromise that would be needed for cross party support would a vague mess resulting in constant litigation as was the answer she got, while it addresses none of the actual problems of the bill, namely no rights that the government could not choose rescind at any time. with abortion in the uk, that would make it more precarious than it already is. by falsely associate the bill with, we can falsely associate its failings with truss too. this is dishonest.
the issue here is one i see on all the articles concerning uk politics. its partisanship. and the worst kind at that. we do not let the facts for themselves. we do not get the basic facts only with a bit of bias and snark. we dont get the basics but with heavy bias snark. what we do get is sound bites. talking points. lacking in any substance, context, any nuance, just as long as it is critical of the subject. with snark laid on thick in case we didnt know we are not supposed like target. the most trifling of trifles get slammed to the same degree as anything genuinely egregious often missing what is genuinely egregious. partisan opinion is presented incontrovertible fact and there is any positive that could be said and we really cant avoid mentioning it, it is without fail tempered with something to dismiss it, like it was an accident, someone elses idea really, or an ulterior motive. i dont claim to be some political expert and i am certainly no fans of the people in our articles. but i read the news. i can click on sources. i can google for more information. and i can tell a political screed and political hackery when i see it. its a thankless task, an ordeal even, to correct even blatant hyperbole with no grounding in reality that i rarely bother. our articles should inform, not dictate. they should not just mirror the hackery from the other side. the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves - its not like isnt of plenty of objective awful shitbaggery that basic fact of the matter does not require the relentless hyperbole, exaggerations, and flat out bullshit that only the most partisan of hacks cannot see through it in an instant and dismiss it all as hackery.
it saddens me because the things boris johnsons of the world really are responsible for are really fucking awful. really are destroying everything of worth i could be of proud of the uk for, dooming its place beyond the empire of the past, and are literally destroying the nation that it will break up into its constituent parts, leaving england alone in the british isles the sole country that cannot see the severing of its limbs with optimism or anything but a trauma. i will no longer be british becoming solely english, with england left a hate filled wasteland. by only preaching to the converted and trying score points with dumb zingers, we do not inform of wrongs being done. we should be cutting through all the bullshit and shine a light on their crimes. we are not actively helping these cunts, but in failing to adequately provide fair and accurate information, we do nothing AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Compare and contrast[edit]
Liz Truss and Charles III - one dignified and one going all over the place and backtracking with it. Anna Livia (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I miss when the Labor Party wasn't run by incompetent para-Thatcherites. British politics just seems to be going on a continuous downward spiral. Vee (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Sacking the chancellor[edit]
A case of 'dropping the pilot' or 'rearranging the furniture on the Titanic'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)