|
Cerv posted:i think labour have been doing more than you give them credit for: Supporting the Tories retroactive law change to avoid complying with a legal judgement about workfare that went against the Government....
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Trickjaw posted:More importantly, isn't June a little early for daddy longlegs? Had loads in my house last night and today. The gormless little bastards. What? they're all-year 'pests', they tend to come indoors when it's bad weather tho (just like spiders), and since the entire UK was under a flood watch yesterday, it's not that surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:What? they're all-year 'pests', they tend to come indoors when it's bad weather tho (just like spiders), and since the entire UK was under a flood watch yesterday, it's not that surprising. Huh. I guess I associate them with late summer/early autumn, and fond school memories of grouse of us dog-piling a beloved colleague and stuffing handfuls of the critters down his jumper. Really never noticed them outside that time. But I also thought that it might have something to do with the fact that where I live now has a river at the bottom of the garden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Undoubtedly everything will be tighter come the election, but I think people are drastically underestimating the kind of change from the current norm to keep the Tories as the largest party (I think we can all agree there's next to no chance of a majority for them). Most people here have probably heard about the tightening of the polls in the last few months and this year generally (they've widened back out to ~35-31). What's not been mentioned much in this story that over the past two years (which ranges from just before the 'recovery'), Tory support has remained fairly constant. Labour have been going up and down, but, unsurprisingly or surprisingly depending on your outlook, the 'things are better now, you're not poor anymore' hasn't been winning the Conservatives much support, and they've got little else to say in the next year. They'll almost definitely go up a bit, but if Labour hold at their current level minus the standard opposition drop, the Tories are going to have to return to their 2010 level of support to remain the largest party. What do you think the chances are of that happening?goddamnedtwisto posted:The one thing I don't think we'll see is a minority government or coalition. The Lib Dems will lose big but their tightest marginals are a pretty even 50/50 split between Tories and Labour so I don't think either side will get big gains from that. This is looking like the most important element at the moment. Most evidence suggests the lib dems are going to lose 20-40 seats, slightly more to the Conservatives but Labour are looking close enough to the line that'd push them over. The current polls suggest a Lab majority of 30-50, I'm expecting one of less than 20.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Parents to be punished (presumably by cutting benefits) if their kids show a 'lack of respect' for teachers says http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-gove-says-parents-will-3657584
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:Speaking of football, this is an actual thing: It wasn't real http://pdy.pr/KNy2Sl
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Parents to be punished (presumably by cutting benefits) if their kids show a 'lack of respect' for teachers says You just know he's itching to reinstate the cane
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Are they things they've actually come out and said they'd do, rather than floating trial balloons, like this wealth redistribution thing they've leaked to the Mail? Stuff that they can use to keep the Left onside but still claim they never promised to do if they got in power? Well they forced a vote they knew they'd lose on it in parliament. Would be hard to back down and not have a vote when they'd actually win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It wasn't real Beautiful
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Cerv posted:Well they forced a vote they knew they'd lose on it in parliament. Would be hard to back down and not have a vote when they'd actually win. It's funny how much of this thread doesn't get the point of Opposition Day. Its entire purpose is so that a party can put down a "Protect Kittens" motion worded in such a way that the Government can't support it, so that the Opposition can use it to say "Look, the opposition wants to kill kittens!". Tories used it that way quite masterfully. e: Take, for example, this motion from December 2009, moved by Andrew Lansley (!): quote:That this House recognises the vital support that attendance allowance and disability living allowance provide for people with disabilities; notes that these benefits are intended to meet the additional costs of living with an impairment or long-term health condition; further notes with concern that approximately 2.87 million people in the UK who receive disability living allowance or attendance allowance are not eligible for social care services; acknowledges that some 20,000 individuals have petitioned the Prime Minister and many more have petitioned individual hon. and right hon. Members to ensure that these benefits are secured; welcomes the Government's announcement that disability living allowance for people under 65 years will not be scrapped; and urges the Government to ensure that attendance allowance and disability living allowance for people aged 65 years and over are secured and not abolished as part of any future reform of the social care system. TinTower fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Betjeman posted:You just know he's itching to reinstate the cane Trouble is, outside of the masturbatory fantasies of the right, teachers don't want to cane children. So I'm not sure who exactly Gove would get to beat the children (a G4S/Serco contract would probably just lead to the beating of dead, non-existent or innocent children or "accidental" deaths) I've never come across a disciplinary problem that I thought could be solved with physical violence against a child, in fact even shouting isn't that effective. Personally, even if corporal punishment in schools was legal, I would take all the necessary actions to intervene to prevent a child from receiving a caning or beating, or to stop it if it was taking place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
You know that thing about the homeless spikes? There's a rebuttal of sorts going around: http://t.co/obqmSUzEhq
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Eh. People aren't really mad about the spikes because they want homeless people to be able to shack up in doorways, so much as because (I think, at least) they're not convinced that making such options even less appealing than they already are does much to push them into better places. It's pretty much the same deal as the dole being made even more loving awful to be on lately; doing that doesn't really help anyone, it just makes the whole thing way more stressful and shaming than it needs to be. Worrying about the causes of homelessness is not incompatible with being mad about the state of homelessness being made even harder to deal with. Don't tell me you don't remember the thing about the fuzz confiscating sleeping bags and bedding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Trouble is, outside of the masturbatory fantasies of the right, teachers don't want to cane children. So I'm not sure who exactly Gove would get to beat the children (a G4S/Serco contract would probably just lead to the beating of dead, non-existent or innocent children or "accidental" deaths) This is probably true in the whole, but there certainly are individuals that LOVED giving out corporal punishment Both the boys head and girls head when I was at school loved doing so - I received it *once* at secondary school for (finally) standing up to a bully ('don't worry, that'll be the last I stand up for myself'). And one of the teachers at primary school was just a little TOO eager to get the slipper if you did anything wrong - I got THAT one 3-4 times for a variety of 'kids will be kids' offenses (one incident I believe I deserved it, however).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Worrying about the causes of homelessness is not incompatible with being mad about the state of homelessness being made even harder to deal with. Don't tell me you don't remember the thing about the fuzz confiscating sleeping bags and bedding. If you're talking about the case in Newham then that turned out to be rather less like confiscation and rather more like a charity giving people new sleeping bags at the same time as the old bill moved them out of an unsafe building before it started to be demolished. I mean it's still not pleasant but it's a very different story once you take more than one person's word for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Supporting the Tories retroactive law change to avoid complying with a legal judgement about workfare that went against the Government.... lol didn't say they were perfect
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Cerv posted:lol didn't say they were perfect That's pretty far from perfect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's funny how much of this thread doesn't get the point of Opposition Day. Its entire purpose is so that a party can put down a "Protect Kittens" motion worded in such a way that the Government can't support it, so that the Opposition can use it to say "Look, the opposition wants to kill kittens!". Tories used it that way quite masterfully. i don't see how that contradicts my point that Labour were doing more to attract the vote of generation rent that doggamtwisto was crediting them with 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:That's pretty far from perfect. it's also something that i suspect most people will have forgotten about come election day next May.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Cerv posted:it's also something that i suspect most people will have forgotten about come election day next May. That's not really an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Given that the options* for those of us that are disabled, next year, are 'people that want to kill us' or 'people that generally don't want to kill us, but might have voted badly a few times', does it really matter? I mean, we can argue that labour aren't perfect for as long as we want, it isn't going to make 'the perfect version of the labour party' materialise out of thin air and attract all normal-labour voters before next may. * Well, except those of us in a safe seat who might as well vote 'some idiot with a turnip on his head' for all the difference voting makes
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Given that the options* for those of us that are disabled, next year, are 'people that want to kill us' or 'people that generally don't want to kill us, but might have voted badly a few times', does it really matter? Really? I mean Labour only had thirteen years to get rid of capability assessments, so they're way better than the Tories, right? Labour doesn't care about us any more than the Tories do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Really? I mean Labour only had thirteen years to get rid of capability assessments, so they're way better than the Tories, right? In a way they actively care less because the tories care enough to try and actively exterminate us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:If you're talking about the case in Newham then that turned out to be rather less like confiscation and rather more like a charity giving people new sleeping bags at the same time as the old bill moved them out of an unsafe building before it started to be demolished. I mean it's still not pleasant but it's a very different story once you take more than one person's word for it. Fair enough. That anecdote isn't that relevant to my point in any case. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:Really? I mean Labour only had thirteen years to get rid of capability assessments, so they're way better than the Tories, right? That's an excellent reason to vote tory, you've convinced me 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:That's an excellent reason to vote tory, you've convinced me Wrong - vote UKIP. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:That's an excellent reason to vote tory, you've convinced me If you want to vote for the slightly less lovely option, Labour, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that they're any better than the current bunch of shitlords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:If you want to vote for the slightly less lovely option, Labour, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that they're any better than the current bunch of shitlords. How can they be both slightly less lovely and simultaneously no better...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:If you want to vote for the slightly less lovely option, Labour, then go right ahead. Just don't pretend that they're any better than the current bunch of shitlords. This is a load of bullshit. Yeah Labour aren't by any definition "good" on disability politics in general, but the Tories have made it an active mission to hurt disabled people to go with their "tough on x" stance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Remind me, who gave ATOS their government contract?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:This is a load of bullshit. Yeah Labour aren't by any definition "good" on disability politics in general, but the Tories have made it an active mission to hurt disabled people to go with their "tough on x" stance. No you're absolutely right. Labour just strengthened existing Tory legislation about capability assessments then introduced a whole new bill about it. That's not actively trying to hurt disabled people at all. All the Tories are are more honest and up front about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
e; unintentional multi post, sorry.
Pork Pie Hat fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
e; unintentional multi post, sorry
Pork Pie Hat fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Eh. People aren't really mad about the spikes because they want homeless people to be able to shack up in doorways, so much as because (I think, at least) they're not convinced that making such options even less appealing than they already are does much to push them into better places. It's pretty much the same deal as the dole being made even more loving awful to be on lately; doing that doesn't really help anyone, it just makes the whole thing way more stressful and shaming than it needs to be. I dunno, we've spent the last 4 years or so working on the basis we wouldn't enable people to rough sleep which has mainly involved persuading tourists not to give money or food, being stricter on food parcels and working with police to move on street drinkers and it's worked out pretty well. When I say enabling people to rough sleep I mean the handful of entrenched homeless people in the city who are quite happy sleeping out each night as long as they can use/drink as much as they want. We don't ever refuse accommodation for those that are out though as 99% of people don't want to go back after that first night in so the challenge is really persuading people to do this (whilst we're short some 40 hostel spaces but I digress...) I don't think I can see any positive in the spikes though they seem pretty dumb plus all the rough sleepers I've met would pass out on those no problem. They'd have been better putting a sign up saying if you're fed up yet call us, or pop in for a chat. But I guess the spikes are better for the "look how tough we're being on them!" For the people in the flats. Slippy G fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:This is probably true in the whole, but there certainly are individuals that LOVED giving out corporal punishment I had teachers who terrorised pupils (locking in lockers, hanging from coat hooks, throwing bags out of windows, throwing board rubbers and chalk at children etc) and this a secondary school was post-87. You'd be in court for most of those these days, sacked for all of them. There's been a massive change in the philosophy of teaching, not to mention almost an entire generation of teachers since the end of corporal punishment in state schools. Even the "vest and pants" PE punishment, much laughed about by people outside of teaching, is looked at with disgust (humiliating children is as bad as beating them).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I wonder if legitimising violence against children in the form of corporal punishment might bring those mindsets and psychopaths back, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Whitefish posted:Why do you think he's so stupid? Is it just because you dislike his policy positions? Nah, I dislike his policy positions for sure, but I can't think of anyone else who seems quite so resistant to opposing viewpoints and evidence. Even by Tory standards he seems to be uniquely able to resist anything that suggests he might be wrong and something about the way he does that seems to suggest to me that it's because his brain just can't handle the possibility of being wrong. By comparison I think IDS is a towering intellect, and I assure you I do not consider IDS to exactly be an intellectual titan. I suppose maybe "stupid" just isn't quite the right term here. Maybe totally lacking in intellectual curiosity? That's just such a big field though, it describes every right-winger, it feels like I'm not quite encapsulating my visceral hatred of Gove by lumping him in with a mere warmongering halfwits like George Bush. I don't know, perhaps it's just his astonishingly punchable face. I'll cop to the fact that there's some emotional bias here that may not have the soundest factual basis and that Gove is quite possibly neither the stupidest nor evilest member of government. It's all pretty academic anyway, I'm not exactly Francis Urquhart trying to navigate the treacherous waters of Westerminster and actually in need of an accurate knowledge of other cabinet members. Whether he's stupid, evil, or both, I think we can all agree gently caress Gove. That all said apparently he has been known to say "Purges work" so maybe he's just an accelerationist red  Edit; To turn to the topic at hand, I can't believe my parents talk with wistfulness about how teachers back in their day would just hurl a board eraser at a misbehaving student or something. I don't know how these pernicious ideas that violence against kids is either effective or productive gets into their heads, they're not exactly big consumers of the Daily Hate or anything. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I wonder if legitimising violence against children in the form of corporal punishment might bring those mindsets and psychopaths back, though. Of course it would. These days we have excellent strategies for protecting children from sexual abuse by staff (number one being make it difficult for anyone to be alone and unobserved with a child), but sadly it still happens. If physically abusing children were legal, then the abusers would flock to the profession. I don't think it'd change the mind of existing teachers (at least none that I've met), but I could see new recruits being susceptible to thinking that it was totally acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:I had teachers who terrorised pupils (locking in lockers, hanging from coat hooks, throwing bags out of windows, throwing board rubbers and chalk at children etc) and this a secondary school was post-87. You'd be in court for most of those these days, sacked for all of them. Depends where you are I suppose, a kid at my old school got hit with a science-room stool swung two-handed by a teacher. I don't think anything happened to anyone, it certainly didn't reach the local paper. One I saw, in about 2003, was a teacher grabbing a 14-year-old by the ear and twisting it hard enough to rip the skin. That was grim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:I suppose maybe "stupid" just isn't quite the right term here. Maybe totally lacking in intellectual curiosity? Sheer wilful ignorance? Hubris? Gove's problem isn't that he's unintelligent, he just seems to believe his own opinions are all the insight anyone could need, and that having to listen to anyone else (say experts in the field, or anyone who disagrees with him) is some kind of imposition. He doesn't seem as completely dull-witted as someone like Cameron, but he has this air of self-important authority that makes him dangerous in the hosed up system of power we have. He's the ideal Tory in a way, because he can control and remake a major part of the state according to belief and ideology, without bowing to inconveniences like the need for facts or evidence or expertise, and he can talk bollocks all day long to justify it. The damage will be done long before anyone actually calls him out on any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:00
|
|
