Jordan Peterson on the verbal combat of Parliamentary democracy
these videos are not for entertainment, they are clearly "fair dealing" under UK copyright law and are exempt as they are reporting current affairs, as I am sure you are aware UK courts "bear in mind that considerations of public interest are paramount".
UK courts see the fair dealing defence usually only applies when part of a work has been taken such as small clips as per my youtube videos.
Reporting of current events
Under Section 30(2), fair dealing using any work for the purpose of reporting current events, with sufficient acknowledgement, is a valid exception to copyright. Photographs are excluded, however; Cornish, Llewelyn and Aplin write that this is "in order to preserve the full value of holding a unique visual record of some person or event" (17TH MAY 2018) Subscribe for more Jordan Peterson
Throw lobsters at them.
I so wish the American House and Senate were as combative as UK Parliament. I hate the false civility and cloying cordiality we call decorum.
Two tribes is exactly the entire problem, it should not be two tribes it should be multiple tribes all completing against each other and challenging each others views. The ENTIRE problem is its just TWO.
TWO SCOOPS?
No that's not the problem. It's perfectly sensible to have two dominant parties. Look at it like this. If the electorate are broadly split 50% to one party and 50% to another then the result of an election give or take a small margin is that half the people get what they wanted. If there are 4 parties who broadly split the vote evenly then the result of every election is only 25% get what they wanted. A wider proportion of the electorate isn't being served or having their concerns or needs being addressed by having more numerous parties evenly represented. That aside you speak as if there is some kind of legal impediment ensuring there are two dominant parties when that simply isn't the case, there are numerous parties and the fact two are dominant is because the electorate voted in bigger numbers for them.
I would prefer for two partys to be forced to work together and then debate and talk about about what laws will be passed rather than how it is now and who ever is in charge brings in laws without being contested. My biggest issue with the UK currently is its almost impossible for the people to challenge the laws. Your voting every election between two partys both who are going to stab you, you just get to pick where you get stabbed.
AntiSocialMotorist forced to work together? That would just mean it would be a one party state
@@antisocialmotorist6909 It sounds like you are talking about a minority government. Where no one party has a lot of power and not a lot gets done because of it.
The former Labour lady redeemed herself well in this segment. I like it when you get two guests - who are apparently diametrically opposed politically - getting areas of partial or even total agreement, like this lady and Dr Peterson did here. But I guess you can only get that when the interview is long enough to avoid the usual sound-bite "aren't you just a poster boy for the far-right" bullshite. The poor Doctor has had to put up with a lot of that lately, and you can tell he's getting a bit tired of it. That's why he perked up so well in this segment when they got to the subject of combative parliamentary debates.
You don't take too many shots at someone well known for being able to take them and volley one right back out of nowhere, especially when they are currently one of the best selling authors and you're there to sell your little book too.
domeone58 Did you notice the lady on the right was quite uncomfortable with the other two in agreement about freedom of speech.
srini gypsy. I did notice that indeed. Interesting, isn't it, to see somebody get uncomfortable in the face of accord between two, otherwise opposed, parties (surely it's something to celebrate....you would have thought). Also noticed how uncomfortable the same lady became when the guy on her right was describing Cathy Newman's, shall we say, challenges during the interview with Jordan Peterson on C4. Telling.
domeone58 The labour lady, another oxygen thief.... I bet you think Corbyn is a good egg too.
JGK29 As it happens I'm not a big fan of Corbyn. Would you have been happier if I'd have said 'fat labour slag'? I know enough fucking insults to make your toes curl if that's what floats your boat but generally if I'm dealing with regular human beings I prefer not to use them. OK?
I used to watch british parlaimant for entertainment, its absolutely awesome, the us congress is bland and uptight by comparison
URRRR WTF!?!?!?!did i just witness BBC Daily Politics take Trump completely OUT OF CONTEXT? I'm not even a big fan of the bloke, but i am pretty sure he was answering a question about a violent gang called something 13. That is pretty poor!
Luca Blight I live in Canada and get a load of US news (ours is presently as boringly as possible by the pseudo-State media). Now a great deal of what Trump says is on the scale ranging from abject nonsense to wicked nonsense. This has been the case throughout his career, for he is a salesman by trade. But sometimes the 'liberal' media are a little too greedy of an opportunity to throw him off his horse. He does not 'follow the rules'. However they don't say nearly enough about abominations like: -saying that he has 'fallen in love' with Kim Jong-un -calling Xi Jinping a 'great man' -being the first US prez to host a ramadan breakfast, in honor of muslims (quite a flip-flop considering his 'islamophobic' image) ----------which suggests to me that the media's own standards of truth and righteousness are not very stringent. It is the amorality of Trump, his willingness to turn at an instant, which bothers me. On the other hand he has not got the USA involved in any new and bloody wars. I would attribute that to the many prayers said by Christians on his behalf, rather than to any wisdom residing in him. He came close to war with Iran.
Wait.... They just agreed!?
the punch ups happen in the bar :- )
Hey here's a great idea says the BBC lets have a talk show and invite people to come and talk but here's the really clever bit lets have the host spend four or fives times as much time asking the question than she allows the guest to answer and force the guest to articulate a sensible reply in 10 words or less to a long complex question. Time management BBC style.
we need go back being a kingdom
at the end they are lol at every one there is only 12 years left get your house in order unless the big G intervines
Comes across more like theater, if you ask me.
The host is such a joke. Like she wants to disagree with him just for the sake of it. "It's really bad though! I heard it's bad!"
"Two tribes coming together" What if you don't support those two tribes? Where's the alternative? We need an alternative.
There are multiple political parties in parliament, your referring to the first initial stage of Prime ministers questions with the Prime minister and the leader of the opposition. Then the other party leaders and back bench mps ask questions.
"two tribes coming together" this woman is such an ideologue.
Mire than one tribe.
The appalling sore-pink hamplanet made an unexpectedly fantastic point.
It's all rubbish . She said it in one 2 tribes , and that's the problem 2 why not more why not 7 or 8 real parties with real ideas for the people who voted them to improve their lives but that never happens . Things only ever stay the same or get worse not better. Not the usual bull real change for the better. It's all rubbish . Let the civil servents do their job and run the country and you wouldn't need to waste tax payers money paying people who don't do their jobs.
IMHO these people are justifying some of the worst tendencies and abuses of parliamentary politics. Boasting, flattery of one's own, denigration and mockery of opponents, WASTING taxpayers' money (if you will, for it is no loner theirs once delivered to the government) on shenanigans which would get a schoolchild sent to the principal's office----------WHAT IS THIS? How does any of this achieve the 'common good'? It is SIN. (James 3:6) 'And the tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of life, and is set on fire by hell.' I am NOT arguing for 'sanitized' politics, but for pulling down walls of pretense. Most of us agree that totalitarianism is far worse than procedural democracy, for it subjects the WHOLE of society to the same infernal PARTY DISCIPLINE which parliamentarians practise! What of freedom of conscience? Justin Trudeau broke the moral backbone of his SO-CALLED Liberal party of Canada when he insisted that NO pro-life candidates should be permitted to run for office. 'Democracy' bears within its own bosom the seeds of authoritarianism and dictatorship, and not much soil is needed for them to sprout. From the Bible we have the precept, 'speak the truth in love'. Neither truth nor genuine love are easily tolerated by many. Perhaps that is why they are in such short supply in parliamentary politics.