Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mormont

  1. They're all pretty shitty friends, and pretty shitty people tbqh. But that's a sitcom problem. You need conflict to drive plot. If they were all really good friends, there would be no storylines. Still, I wouldn't want to hang with any of them.
  2. Could we perhaps return to discussing UK Politics?
  3. This is a fallacy I've been tackling in my professional life recently. It makes you feel better when you're being criticised. But most of the time, when both sides are saying you're wrong, you're clearly doing something wrong. (Not a comment on the BBC in particular. I just find this notion of 'we must be doing something right if we've pissed everyone off' to be dumb and complacent.)
  4. But seriously. Anyone who takes money to appear on Russia Today has shown what they are worth, and it's nothing.
  5. It does not, to be clear. The topic is clearly covered by the moratorium, and I can't for a moment imagine why anyone would think it isn't. If anybody wants to discuss this further, they can take it to PM. As ever, that is the only appropriate place to raise questions or comments about moderator decisions.
  6. Let's not. Anybody who wants to read that article will have no problem finding it (I didn't): anyone who wants to discuss it has no shortage of other places to do so. ETA - I'm serious, people. I've had to delete two further comments. No more.
  7. It’s worth noting also, particularly for non UK posters, that: - Galloway certainly picked up votes he would not otherwise have got because Labour effectively did not have a candidate. - Galloway did campaign on local issues such as hospital provision, regeneration of the area and even the future of the football club. He has little chance of delivering on these, but he didn’t run a single issue campaign. - Galloway will almost certainly be ejected at the general election in a few months. - the Conservatives and Reform also basically lost their votes to the independent candidate who came second.
  8. As I say, Galloway is a pompous blowhard. The idea that the UK has ‘almost no role’ in the Gaza issue is self evidently untrue. Historically, politically and economically. And the notion that foreign policy isn’t a legitimate reason to decide your vote in a by-election is applied very selectively.
  9. Not quite sure what that’s supposed to mean but it’s a pretty silly thing to say whichever way I slice it. Gaza is very much the issue most affecting many of these voters right now. Galloway may be a vain, pompous blowhard in an incel hat, but those who voted for him had the right to.
  10. I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I just think there's a narrative sometimes that suggests that a switch on this issue would be net positive for Biden, that fails to understand there's a cost to him electorally that is bound to be part of the explanation of why he isn't moving as far and as fast as they would like.
  11. But in step with another chunk. This is the basic problem.
  12. My understanding is that the Putin-oligarch power relationship is in practice the opposite of this. They're his creatures. Which is not to say that there are no others in Russia who could decide Putin's time is over.
  13. A month ago he was deputy chairman of the party, and his job was to say things like this so Sunak didn't have to.
  14. Every word she says there is a lie, and she knows it’s a lie.
  15. Look, if you want to assess whether this was 'well played' in the sense I meant, all you need to ask yourself is: are the press currently consumed with stories about Labour divisions over Gaza and what a challenge this is for Starmer's leadership? As for 'losing Scotland', that battle is exactly why the SNP proposed this motion (that, and to address their own internal pressures). They hoped to exacerbate Labour splits to benefit from that. Again, we're not now talking about that, are we? Now, my personal political views should be reasonably well known after more than two decades on this forum. But I can't see a way in which anyone can deny that Starmer's in a better position now than he was on Monday. Whether I approve of what happened or not (I think I was clear that I don't), and whether I would rather he take a different policy position on Gaza or not, are not really what I'm talking about. I'm just (not altogether seriously) acknowledging that he comes out of this a winner, tactically speaking.
  16. Again, is there any evidence that any of the above is true? I have looked, but can find none. And is there any argument against the fact that notwithstanding what the Chinese magazines may or may not have done, McCarty's response was in every respect wrong, high handed, and a disgrace?
  17. It's not entirely clear to me why, even if it is true that MPs faced credible threats, the only solution to that would be to take the Labour amendment. I doubt anyone making threats would be mollified by a call for an 'immediate humanitarian ceasefire' instead of an 'immediate ceasefire for all combatants'. I think what happened here is that Starmer (or his team) played on Hoyle's anxieties and manipulated Hoyle into taking a decision based an emotional desire to do something, without stopping to think about whether it would actually be a good idea. Hoyle has never really impressed me as a Speaker, though. Anyway, Starmer has been the big winner in this. Worked out beautifully for him. Well played.
  18. Again, I'm going to assume and indeed insist that it wasn't until I see some sort of clear explanation of why it was, with details. ETA - and I also want to repeat: Even if the magazine(s) did do something wrong or inappropriate, that does not explain or excuse McCarty's actions. Those remain utterly wrong and shady regardless. Unilaterally throwing out hundreds of nominating ballots without consultation, and then concealing it, is not the way you deal with this.
  19. Nope. The publishers broke no rules. ETA - I would genuinely appreciate any links that explain why anyone is viewing this as deliberate collusion to rig the vote, because I cannot find anything myself, and to be honest, searching is hard because of the large number of articles, blog posts, social media posts and other sources saying that these publications did nothing wrong! I'm struggling even to find out what the second magazine in this 'collusion' is. SF World and...? The only one out of bounds here is Dave McCarty.
  20. It didn't just seem that way: it was. It broke no bounds at all.
  21. An alternative presentation of the same facts is: Chinese fans were super excited to be hosting their first WorldCon. Their home magazines did a thing that Western magazines do uncontroversially every year. The only difference was that the enormous number of Chinese voters and small number of Chinese SF magazines combined to concentrate those (perfectly legitimate) votes. In response, McCarty took it upon himself to disqualify a completely unprecedented number of votes for unprecedented reasons, apparently without telling anyone. He still has not explained this decision. There’s no apparent reason he could not do so in this case and the decision is arguably not very compatible with his professed concern for Chinese fandom. The effect is that the Chinese voters were disenfranchised, the first Chinese Hugos featured far fewer Chinese works than should have been the case, and many if not most of the actual winners now say they feel their award is devalued. If McCarty really believed this decision was necessary. in the spirit of the award and proportionate to the issue at hand, he should have been willing to involve others in it and publicly explain it. I’ve run student elections for years: back in the days of paper voting, I took care and concern over every ballot I had to disqualify and got a second opinion on each. If you have any genuine respect for a democratic process you’re engaging in, however trivial, you simply don’t throw out the opinion of a voter unless you absolutely have to by the agreed rules, and you don’t do it on your own, on your sole interpretation of what the organisation running the vote might or might not want. Unprofessional would be the kindest word for it, arrogant would be a less kind one. The combination of this and the background checks suggests someone who doesn’t have a great deal of genuine respect for the integrity of the Hugo awards.
  22. Things Dave McCarty says have, for me, zero probative value at this point. The bit that's drawn less attention, but is growing as a factor, is McCarty chucking out unknown (but very high) numbers of ballots for Chinese language works without any justification other than 'I think this recommendation list is a slate'. Even if it was a slate, that's what EPH is for: the rules don't say slate votes get disqualified on the say-so of the Hugo Administrator.
  23. [mod] Folks, I understand that positions on the Gaza issue are a major concern for the US election. But we’re having a moratorium on threads about Gaza for now, which I for one appreciate since I’m going into my nth straight day of refereeing discussions about it at work. I don’t want it to take over this thread. So let’s hit pause on that please. It is temporary, and I assure you, it’s not likely to go away as an issue meantime. [/mod]
  24. But backing the apartheid regime was not, in fact, the right decision by that criterion. Nor was backdoor sales of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, for that matter. And as for Churchill, well, there have been books written by more qualified folks than I on that one. Your list might well have been willing to back Ukraine in ways that (some) current leaders are not. Then again they're all dead, so we'll never know. But the idea that this is down to their 'clear sight', I'm sceptical about. I don't want to derail further, so I'll leave it there.
  • Create New...