seeing as there ain't one...

There must be more to life than football?

Brexit

Poll ended at Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:23 pm

Remain
3
50%
Leave
3
50%
 
Total votes: 6

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:26 pm

Gibbon wrote:Antarctica? ;)

You have a point, but still, when you think of jenga, it immediately conjures images of impending and inevitable collapse. I'm not sure that's what he was going for.
I think the point is managing an economy is like removing blocks from a Jenga tower. E.g., taking a block from the top is like adjusting interest rates to control inflation, you've a fairly good idea it's a safe and sensible approach. Taking one from the bottom is like imposing a maximum cap on salaries, youknow the whole system will fall down. But then there's the ones in the middle, you're not sure you can take it safely but can be surprised, or one that looks easy can cause the thing to fall. If there is a difference, you can leave a Jenga tower alone and it will stay as it is...

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Gibbon » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:14 pm

Rover the Top wrote:If there is a difference, you can leave a Jenga tower alone and it will stay as it is
Only if you stop playing, and then it's just jenga blocks, not jenga.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:04 am

That court case was worthwhile... :?

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13326
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:08 am

Yes, it was. It ensured that a fundamental part of our constitution was followed correctly.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Gibbon » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:16 am

Pah! Constitutions! Who follows those anymore?

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:17 am

Ensuring a fundamental part of our constitution was followed correctly was worthwhile... :?

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13326
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:26 am

Rover the Top wrote:Ensuring a fundamental part of our constitution was followed correctly was worthwhile... :?
Yes, otherwise you get a precedent that you don't need to follow it in these cases and then when you care about something you get royally screwed over. Pretty simple and enormously important. I've no idea why the Govt felt the need to oppose it - that's where your ire should be directed. It's not like it actually makes any difference to them - just wasted a load of our money and made them look a bit stupid.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:17 am

Actually, by opposing it they've made their position more politically secure - their stance turned a vote against them into a vote against the referendum result, rather than an objection to how they were handling things. So not only are they carrying out the decision of the electorate, they've now got a huge blessing from parliament with the opposition party further split. We carry on on the same path we were on anyway, and whilst it may seem like the right thing to follow the book, if the book has the potential to override the result of a referendum, the book needs changing.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13326
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:23 am

Rover the Top wrote:Actually, by opposing it they've made their position more politically secure - their stance turned a vote against them into a vote against the referendum result, rather than an objection to how they were handling things. So not only are they carrying out the decision of the electorate, they've now got a huge blessing from parliament with the opposition party further split. We carry on on the same path we were on anyway, and whilst it may seem like the right thing to follow the book, if the book has the potential to override the result of a referendum, the book needs changing.
If they hadn't gone to court then we'd have had the same vote earlier and at less expense with the same outcome - I don't see how the court case has changed anything about what that vote was about or changed anything for them politically other than making them look like they wanted to do something significant without following due process.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:08 am

Ethiaa wrote:
Rover the Top wrote:Actually, by opposing it they've made their position more politically secure - their stance turned a vote against them into a vote against the referendum result, rather than an objection to how they were handling things. So not only are they carrying out the decision of the electorate, they've now got a huge blessing from parliament with the opposition party further split. We carry on on the same path we were on anyway, and whilst it may seem like the right thing to follow the book, if the book has the potential to override the result of a referendum, the book needs changing.
If they hadn't gone to court then we'd have had the same vote earlier and at less expense with the same outcome - I don't see how the court case has changed anything about what that vote was about or changed anything for them politically other than making them look like they wanted to do something significant without following due process.
OK, so... no court case and a vote would be about the government's plans alone, and the brief bill could conceivably be thrown out because of objections to it being, for example, too brief. But because they fought and 'lost' on the stance that the electorate had already made the decision, it caused a major headache for MPs who may have been planning to vote against the bill but were representing pro-Leave constituencies. The result may have been the same anyway, but then it would have been the same if the government were just allowed to act on the result of the referendum. Following 'due process' has just been for show and the expense of it is the fault of those who brought the case.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13326
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:09 am

Nah.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17481
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Gibbon » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:54 am

Checks and balances isn't it. It's there for a reason as a safeguard against abuse. No harm in bringing May to heel when she oversteps her bounds, otherwise she gets away with setting a dangerous precedent.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26832
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:31 pm

Gibbon wrote:Checks and balances isn't it. It's there for a reason as a safeguard against abuse. No harm in bringing May to heel when she oversteps her bounds, otherwise she gets away with setting a dangerous precedent.
And yet it has actually opened up the possibility of abuse - some didn't just go through the motions and voted against the bill, after all. Unless you believe an unelected House of Lords having the potential to block a national referendum result is a good thing? I'm not sure exactly what situation you foresee as so dangerous it will require a token gesture vote from parliament to confirm the government can take direction from the electorate?

User avatar
mrblackbat
Promising manager
Posts: 14325
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by mrblackbat » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:35 pm

Ethiaa wrote:Yes, it was. It ensured that a fundamental part of our constitution was followed correctly.
Technically, the UK doesn't have a constitution, but a collection of acts of parliament, court judgments and common law.

User avatar
Ethiaa
Site Admin
Posts: 13326
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:22 am
Location: Preston
Contact:

Re: seeing as there ain't one...

Post by Ethiaa » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:37 pm

mrblackbat wrote:
Ethiaa wrote:Yes, it was. It ensured that a fundamental part of our constitution was followed correctly.
Technically, the UK doesn't have a constitution.
We don't have a booklet with it written it but we have one, it's formed from decisions exactly like that one which is why it was worthwhile.

Post Reply