|
ronya posted:god, that office. He's going to show up on a hoarder's show at some point, isn't he He's a university professor, that's his office at LSE, they all look like that.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
where do all those books go, I wonder
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Car Stranger posted:Would that alignment include the EU and immigration? I'd be very interested in seeing those polls/that analysis if anyone has a link. Well I count "racism" to include the anti-immigration stuff - the Greens are ok with it, I thought? On the EU I'm not so sure. This was from that Another Angry Voice Facebook account, not entirely sure how accurate he is with his sources though. Did anybody else see it?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Ireland had no problem counting their votes by STV, and Dublin elects the same number of MEPs that NI does.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Every time I see this picture I want to photoshop a banner in the back with "Unser Kampf In Politik" on it in Potsdam font, but that's probably childish.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland the Euro count is still underway. The story of the election is rapidly becoming how god drat long it's taking to count the votes - there have been rumblings about converting to electronic voting machines. STV does have it's downsides... Pfft, Tower Hamlets are still counting their local election results despite starting two days earlier on the count than the Euros. Mind you I do wonder about the "vote for two" system and how difficult that would be to count every time I see it, and there have been probably dozens of recounts now as a result.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
HauntedRobot posted:Every time I see this picture I want to photoshop a banner in the back with "Unser Kampf In Politik" on it in Potsdam font, but that's probably childish. It's a famous picture of hitler with farage's head photoshopped and you think a nazi banner might just tip it to 'childish' ? 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
First UKIP councillor suspended over claims of homophobia and racism, so that took what, half a working day or so? It was Dave Small from Redditch if anyone wants to look him up, will edit a story in here when one pops up but it's the guy that was involved in this story: http://www.redditchstandard.co.uk/2014/05/23/news-New-UKIP-councillor-in-homophobic-comments-row-107371.html Loonytoad Quack fucked around with this message at 17:02 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
ronya posted:well, it's not a new phenomenon This isn't necessarily true, the Other gets redefined to suit whatever political purpose it's being used for. Like with these elections, where them furriners became a subset of immigrants - people who immigrated here a long time ago have long been the Other, but now they got to be part of 'us' because they're the good ones, the ones who came when things were different and their presence was justified. They've been pulled into the fold and used as a counterpoint to new immigrants, who are being blamed for pretty much everything out of political expedience (i.e. distracting everyone from the coalition's responsibility for the state of things). The whole point is to misdirect the majority - the 'like us' group will always be bigger than the scapegoat group, whoever those definitions happen to cover at the time
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Well I count "racism" to include the anti-immigration stuff - the Greens are ok with it, I thought? That's what I'm saying though. You're conflating desire for immigration reform directly with racism unless I'm misunderstanding. It's not inherently racist (though a lot of massive racists would support it of course). And, even then, it's complicated by being inexorably linked with the EU. An EU exit is by definition going to mean massive immigration reform. They want to stay in the EU (albeit while campaigning for stuff like max pay ratios) and their policy on immigration isn't especially out there, though it rules out preference based on skills or resources, which is IIRC exactly the mechanism UKIP have said they would use. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mg.html E: Actually, re-reading at home, this bit is loving wild. quote:MG200 The Green Party's highest priority is the creation of a just and ecological world order in which environmental devastation is minimised and needs can be met without recourse to migration. Car Stranger fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:This isn't necessarily true, the Other gets redefined to suit whatever political purpose it's being used for. Like with these elections, where them furriners became a subset of immigrants - people who immigrated here a long time ago have long been the Other, but now they got to be part of 'us' because they're the good ones, the ones who came when things were different and their presence was justified. that's because they're not actually in power, though - once they get into power, they can actually start expelling successive waves of them furriners, and the pressure to keep delivering will make the net expand.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Loonytoad Quack posted:First UKIP councillor suspended over claims of homophobia and racism, so that took what, half a working day or so? Has he actually been suspended? The article just says the local branch are going to investigate. Clearly from now on the election broadcasts need to add a rider after the UKIP results along the lines of 'ofc we'll have to see what their actual count is once all the bigots have been suspended' 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
ronya posted:that's because they're not actually in power, though - once they get into power, they can actually start expelling successive waves of them furriners, and the pressure to keep delivering will make the net expand. Maybe, but that implies some kind of consistency and sincerity. Deporting immigrants because you want to restore the Britain Of Our Dreams is one thing, in that case they'd go hog wild and do as much as possible. But if it's down to expediency and misdirection, there's plenty of other targets to otherise. Justification is irrelevant, so long as you can sell it to the majority
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why suddenly Tony Blair gets featured in the Guardian on a weekly basis? Is he making a comeback, is all forgiven? Not a brit, so just curious.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Can someone explain to me why suddenly Tony Blair gets featured in the Guardian on a weekly basis? Is he making a comeback, is all forgiven? Not a brit, so just curious. Because he gets page views by people going there to comment on how much of a turd he is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
notaspy posted:so what happens to the 1.2m brits living in europe if we walk away? Is there any reliable number on Brits living abroard. Way earlier up thread i quoted 2.3 million living in Europe, which is what a quick search had told me. A slightly more thorough look finds estimates(guesses)all over the drat place.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Interestingly; the two general election polls since the local elections has shown different thing - the Ashcroft poll shows that UKIP have a slight bump (17%; forcing the Tories below 30%); while the Populous Poll shows UKIP unchanged on 14%. The Euro results might influence that a bit; we'll have to see at the end of the week. I'd imagine a short bounce that in the long run puts UKIP a few points up; although they might fall away a bit as we push to the general election; especially if they don't win Newark...
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Can someone explain to me why suddenly Tony Blair gets featured in the Guardian on a weekly basis? Is he making a comeback, is all forgiven? Not a brit, so just curious. If you're pinning your hopes on Miliband winning an election, maybe it's nice to remember a time when Tories knew their place and we had a prime minister who wasn't shy about putting the boot into naughty Nigel as and when necessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvU9gWS8-uk Also, there's not much to disagree with in his comments about UKIP. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:You often see the same in american politics - immigrants or 2nd generation supporting strict immigration control, it's a 'I got mine, now to make sure that what I got can't be diluted...' mindset. People need to look at the real reasons their way of life is suffering. The major political parties have to explain why people are so unhappy. When people look for an answer as to why their leisure centres and libraries have been closed down and why it takes so long to get medical treatment no party is going to say 'It was us! We cut the funding and set them up to fail!' Immigrants are an easy scapegoat, relying on fear of the other when the reality is its the native fuckface in power that is loving them and the reality is they have much more in common with the so called other.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:If you're pinning your hopes on Miliband winning an election, maybe it's nice to remember a time when Tories knew their place and we had a prime minister who wasn't shy about putting the boot into naughty Nigel as and when necessary. argh someone who responds to Nige like that is sorely needed, can we just harvest the good parts of his brain and put them in someone less lovely. twoot fucked around with this message at 19:01 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I think it comes with the triangulatory territory New Labour, for all its faults, internalized a genuine belief that it was the only remaining and serious left-wing contender in a modern age of limited government, that anyone further to its left was unelectable, unreasonable, or both. without that, the righteousness and faith would have had transparently no basis and strategically, well -- notice that he left himself open to the really obvious line of attack "... so, we are going to be paying for sewers in Budapest, then?" - basic questioning of the necessity of having to have rebates and negotiations at all - but it doesn't matter because it would have forced Farage to seem unreasonable if he out and said it. It's an argument completely meaningless to Euroskeptics, who neither want to pay for European sewers nor have any faith in European unified government as a substitute to multilateral negotiation - but it doesn't matter, because it's not aimed at those people. This is basic rhetorical strategy but it works supremely well with the broader combo of a TINA attitude to painful realities that are so non-negotiable you're beyond the pale for even questioning them, with a idealistic approach to the power of committees to make decisions bound by those TINAs. ronya fucked around with this message at 19:31 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Is there any reliable number on Brits living abroard. Way earlier up thread i quoted 2.3 million living in Europe, which is what a quick search had told me. A slightly more thorough look finds estimates(guesses)all over the drat place. I took the numbers from the UN as I thought it would be best to go for something neutral. Look at my post history for a link to the raw data. (i'll do the same and update this post if you're feeling lazy) Here you go: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/migration/migration-report-2013.shtml If you want to use the data you'll need to transpose the axis to make is more readable (well I did) notaspy fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Looks like Portsmouth council will be a Tory/Labour/UKIP coalition (for a majority of 4).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
ronya posted:New Labour [believed] ... that anyone further to its left was unelectable, unreasonable, or both. Well, there are two ways of reading that statement, aren't there? You could take it as "views to the left of ours are inherently unelectable/unreasonable" but you could equally well take it as "everyone who is currently articulating views to the left of ours is unelectable/unreasonable." The former is debatable, the latter much less so.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Well, that depends, doesn't it. New Labour presumably has a monopoly on "the status quo, except with a little more welfare spending and regulation". The Greens cornered "all that, but with higher taxes and a chunk more spending, especially on the graduates" and Lib Dem "all that, but with the state not rubbing your face in its presence so much. Oh, and the graduates thing too." So, where's Clause 4 and mass nationalization in all that. Its electability doesn't seem to have made a return, really...
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
ronya posted:So, where's Clause 4 and mass nationalization in all that. Its electability doesn't seem to have made a return, really... Polling suggests that renationalisation is far more unacceptable to politicians and the media than the general public. At least where basic utilities and services are concerned. Even a majority of Tory party members favour renationalising the rails. LemonDrizzle posted:Well, there are two ways of reading that statement, aren't there? You could take it as "views to the left of ours are inherently unelectable/unreasonable" but you could equally well take it as "everyone who is currently articulating views to the left of ours is unelectable/unreasonable." The former is debatable, the latter much less so. The former's factually incorrect, as far as electability is concerned. New Labour's arrogance is hardly a secret, plenty of them believed they were forging the only possible path with almost religious fervour. Alecto fucked around with this message at 20:56 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
This is more of a question for the trainchat thread, but what would be the best way to renationalise the railways? Giving them to back to DOR once the franchises run out?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
TinTower posted:This is more of a question for the trainchat thread, but what would be the best way to renationalise the railways? Giving them to back to DOR once the franchises run out? Don't forget there's Network Rail too, although I think that's 51% owned by the govt. already so they'd just have to buy the rest out.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
hint: that's not because there's a grand conspiracy by an unchanging elite to keep the rails private, it's because nobody has any plan for a renationalized rail that avoids pissing off the major stakeholders. Its popularity as a concept is tied directly to its nebulousness. that's why "like the Directly Operated Railways line" idea resonates. It wouldn't have been proposed on its own - certainly Militant wouldn't have approved, it's functionally a GLC with a shareholder-value mandate and the same power to ignore cleaner's strikes as any other privatized line. It only so happens that the only shareholder is the Department of Transport, but that came about by accident, it's not winning politics to talk of GLCs and sovereign wealth funds. The only people in Britain who like state ownership are those who want to pillage state-owned firms for pet causes. ronya fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Don't forget there's Network Rail too, although I think that's 51% owned by the govt. already so they'd just have to buy the rest out. Network Rail ltd has no shareholders. It's not owned by anyone. It's a bit weird like that. That's why they kept the Network Rail debt off the government balance sheet for years. By just saying "it's not ours".
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
ronya posted:hint: that's not because there's a grand conspiracy by an unchanging elite to keep the rails private, it's because nobody has any plan for a renationalized rail that avoids pissing off the major stakeholders I'm sure the Labour party feel there's no good way to do it, they may even be right. I think it does speak to how out-of-touch the media is with the national mood, however. Not that they don't know it, or care, they're just deeply right wing, as a whole. Papers like The Sun may be chest-beatingly populist in a lot of ways, but that all stops when it comes to the leftist economics that their proprietors loath. Regardless, you were talking electability, not feasibility. As UKIP may be showing us soon, renationalisation is an eminently electable policy, if only for a one time run should its implementation be disastrous. So perhaps good fodder for the populists rather than the establishment, but I really have absolutely no idea what can and can't be effectively nationalised in this country.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Alecto posted:I'm sure the Labour party feel there's no good way to do it, they may even be right. I think it does speak to how out-of-touch the media is with the national mood, however. Not that they don't know it, or care, they're just deeply right wing, as a whole. Papers like The Sun may be chest-beatingly populist in a lot of ways, but that all stops when it comes to the leftist economics that their proprietors loath. Regardless, you were talking electability, not feasibility. As UKIP may be showing us soon, renationalisation is an eminently electable policy, if only for a one time run should its implementation be disastrous. So perhaps good fodder for the populists rather than the establishment, but I really have absolutely no idea what can and can't be effectively nationalised in this country. No, I meant electability - by any party, not Labour in particular. "If elected we'll renationalize the railways!" "Okay, what lines do you intend to close? What lines do you intend to open? Do you intend to freeze fares at inflation? What about wages? Do you intend to prioritize service reliability, frequency, or lower fares? What's your opinion on the already-existing campaigns by RMT and ASLEF and TSSA on conditions as they already exist - especially on limitations on the right to strike, and the definition of essential or managerial personnel?" And the moment you answer these questions, your support evaporates, because everyone who said they supported rail renationalization thought you meant their favoured lines and stakeholders but not, like, all those other contenders in the old railway battles whose evil they remember so well. Answering these questions generates more enemies than supporters, so the question cannot be answered. HS2 scraped through to get three-party support and is still a crushing lodestone around any government's neck, and it's a relatively minor project next to resurrecting British Rail. Of course there are plenty of ways to do it. Lots of countries run national railways. There's just no way to build a stable coalition for any particular way in Britain. Railway isn't an end in itself to any substantial group. It never was! It was a proxy for support for the ideal of strikes, or for protesting against a feeling of abandonment or derision of one's village out in the Midlands, or as a stalking-horse for a highway revolt that itself bundles housing and green and countercultural politics. But it certainly wasn't about providing rail transport.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
ronya posted:No, I meant electability - by any party, not Labour in particular. "If elected we'll renationalize the railways!" "Okay, what lines do you intend to close? What lines do you intend to open? Do you intend to freeze fares at inflation? What about wages? Do you intend to prioritize service reliability, frequency, or lower fares? What's your opinion on the already-existing campaigns by RMT and ASLEF and TSSA on conditions as they already exist - especially on limitations on the right to strike, and the definition of essential or managerial personnel?" And the moment you answer these questions, your support evaporates, because everyone who said they supported rail renationalization thought you meant their favoured lines and stakeholders but not, like, all those other contenders in the old railway battles whose evil they remember so well. Answering these questions generates more enemies than supporters, so the question cannot be answered. HS2 scraped through to get three-party support and is still a crushing lodestone around any government's neck, and it's a relatively minor project next to resurrecting British Rail. If the general principle could get past the media, which it can't, I think on electability terms it would work as a policy for a main party for one election. Election promises are never especially fleshed out, simply saying 'renationalisation' wouldn't be enough to get you passed the 'they don't have any details' barrier, but given the popularity of the principle, even with the media screaming 'Socialists! Commies! You don't have a proper plan!', it'd remain in the net positives for you for at least one election. Or maybe not, it's hard to say, the real challenge would be whether its innate popularity would be able to beat the 'Bankrupting the country!' crowd. But then, as you aptly note, doing it, coming up with an actual plan would be very likely to sink a government. Which, again, makes it a good UKIP policy. Very popular in principle, but you don't need a real plan because you're never going to win anyway, and the media's spent so long calling you far right that everyone's going to get whiplash trying to call them socialists. Don't know if they'd be able to get it past their members, but it worked very well for the FN, and evidence suggests it'd work well here.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:If you're pinning your hopes on Miliband winning an election, maybe it's nice to remember a time when Tories knew their place and we had a prime minister who wasn't shy about putting the boot into naughty Nigel as and when necessary. "You sit with our country's flag, you do not represent our country's interests" is kind of hilarious coming from the mouth of Bliar.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
A Sloth posted:"You sit with our country's flag, you do not represent our country's interests" is kind of hilarious coming from the mouth of Bliar. I pretty much said the same thing when a friend posted that to Facebook.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Does anyone have any convenient links to how much either A) Afghanistan B) Iraq C) 2008-> bailouts Cost? I did some Googling but found conflicting figures. I know it's not something that can be precisely quantified but it's useful to show to people as a 'these are why we're in the shitter, not scroungers or immigrants or Europeans' argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
ronya posted:No, I meant electability - by any party, not Labour in particular. "If elected we'll renationalize the railways!" "Okay, what lines do you intend to close? What lines do you intend to open? Do you intend to freeze fares at inflation? What about wages? Do you intend to prioritize service reliability, frequency, or lower fares? What's your opinion on the already-existing campaigns by RMT and ASLEF and TSSA on conditions as they already exist - especially on limitations on the right to strike, and the definition of essential or managerial personnel?" Ahahahahaha. Have you seen the state of political commentary in the media? They wouldn't even ask the first of those questions, and even if they did nobody is going to listen to the answers.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Pasco posted:Ahahahahaha. Have you seen the state of political commentary in the media? They wouldn't even ask the first of those questions, and even if they did nobody is going to listen to the answers. The media wouldn't but all the relevant interest groups would and because you'd never be able to keep all (or even most) of them happy, your feelgood yay nationalisation story would rapidly turn into an endless series of rows and walkouts that would derail the whole project and turn it into an unresolvable shitstorm unless you were willing to tell a lot of them to just shut the gently caress up and accept the new deal.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
If UKIP do swing wild left with their economic policies, do you think the other parties are going to chase them like they did with the racist vote, or stand their ground? I'd find it pretty galling if Labour were out-lefted by UKIP (a bit like how they were in Scotland by the SNP).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
Renationalisation of the railways is very easy. Network Rail will be reclassified as a public sector body later this year (as it already was to everyone but the exchequer to keep the debt off the books) so the infrastructure problem was solved almost a decade ago, and all you have to do is to simply let the franchises expire and place them under the control of someone else. From what I understand it can't be Network Rail until there is another Railways act, as they are legally not allowed to run any railway services (this was intentional under the act that privatised the railways originally to prevent them from ever coming back under public ownership). This is similar with DOR control, it is not legal to allow it to run a franchise permanently, it has to be relet to the private sector. I have no idea how London Overground fits into that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:12
|
|
