|
Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce |
|
44 | 21.36% |
| ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress |
|
19 | 9.22% |
| Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin |
|
9 | 4.37% |
| Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit |
|
8 | 3.88% |
| Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died |
|
24 | 11.65% |
| Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread |
|
17 | 8.25% |
| ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter |
|
15 | 7.28% |
| ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming |
|
2 | 0.97% |
| Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy |
|
10 | 4.85% |
| ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union |
|
5 | 2.43% |
| ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die |
|
25 | 12.14% |
| Total: | 206 votes | ||
|
Hoops posted:What's wrong with picking up the box when the baby is inside? Seems like a useful feature to me. Couple of reasons, though worth bearing in mind these are deliberately risk-averse for worst-case scenarios - but as midwives and health visitors will often tell you, worst case scenarious in relation to parenting and babies can be much more common than you think. Most obviously, there's the possibility of it breaking. This depends on the sturdiness/strength of the box, and you'd certainly hope that would be the overriding concern of the manufacturer, but since this is outwith the working group's control, the recommendation was to err on the side of caution. Related to this, there's the argument that no matter how strong the official box, encouraging people to move their babies around in what appears to be essentially just a cardboard box is not a good idea, since there may be a not insignificant number of people who might consider one box to be as good as another, and use any old leftover DVD/toy/shoe box/etc if it's closer to hand. FWIW I don't actually know what the final design looks like, and if other countries have handles on their's I can't imagine it's a particularly big concern. The lid thing definitely stuck out though, and I think her main point was more a wee bit of professional/gender politics point scoring along the lines of 'out of touch men in suits don't understand how things work in practice and need [overwhelmingly female] frontline workers to tell them what's what' (which is fair enough). One suggested solution to having a lid, for example, was to have written instructions on/in the box explaining that it's a bad idea to shut your baby inside. This rather overlooks the fact that people in the most vulnerable groups, which is who should ideally be getting the most benefit from the whole scheme, are much more likely to have poor reading comprehension.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
I think most of Pissflaps posts are in the sport sections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I think most of Pissflaps posts are in the sport sections. This is bad for Jeremy Vine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I think the baby box idea is one that on the face of it seems like a nice thing but when you dig deeper its a case of giving freebies to people who don't need them, and it may actually do harm by acting as a sticking plaster solution to a problem that was never 'fixed' by such boxes in the first place: it was always more about education than a cardboard crib with some baby wipes in it. As somebody about to welcome a new baby into the world myself i'd love a box of free stuff. But I don't need it: I can afford to buy my own baby things. It would be better if that money was spent on the people who do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
does the box have air holes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think the baby box idea is one that on the face of it seems like a nice thing but when you dig deeper its a case of giving freebies to people who don't need them, and it may actually do harm by acting as a sticking plaster solution to a problem that was never 'fixed' by such boxes in the first place: it was always more about education than a cardboard crib with some baby wipes in it. All the new babies in the country get a box, and they all get the same. There may be a more optimal allocation of resources to directly counteract inequality, but it's not that much money and it represents the kind of society I want to live in. As well, I do believe there's a soft sociopolitical benefit in the state giving every single set of parents the same supplies on day one. It's non-quantifiable but it sets a national tone that can then be built upon for other areas of inequality. Puts another strong, populist pillar against the dismantling of the NHS, normalises socialism (at least superficial socialism) in a very feelgood and non-threatening way. So seeming like a nice thing on the face of it is actually a plus point in my eyes, not a drawback. Which I know is effectively politicising infant mortality, but I'm pretty much a pragmatist with everything. There's no more effective policy area for that than newborns, as nobody disagrees that we should all be looking after the babbies. So it's a lot more than just the box of stuff imo, I'd roll it out tomorrow. Hoops fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
do the baby boxes stack?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:do the baby boxes stack?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
do they float?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
we all float down here georgie
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I think the baby box idea is one that on the face of it seems like a nice thing but when you dig deeper its a case of giving freebies to people who don't need them, and it may actually do harm by acting as a sticking plaster solution to a problem that was never 'fixed' by such boxes in the first place: it was always more about education than a cardboard crib with some baby wipes in it. I suspect this is a relatively common belief, and it makes a lot of intuitive sense, especially for anyone who, like you (and me, and I assume the vast majority of this thread) doesn't need a box of free stuff when they have/are going to have a baby. You also aren't wrong about the relative value of the box itself, but I'll get to that. The short of it is though, least in my opinion, is that what you're presenting is a rather naive argument, handwaving "education" as something which can and does happen in some abstract way, without any material intervention. It also suggests that "those who need it" is limited to a deprivation of "stuff," the physical box/stuff, and that's very much not the point. For the sake of simplicity, I'm also largely going to ignore the whole universal vs targeted/means tested element you bring up, since that's a far broader argument than I want to tackle here. Also, for clarity, I don't think you're a monster or an idiot or anything like that for making this argument - I can forsee this easily slipping into internet arguing over semantics or who cares the most about children/poverty/etc, and I'd much rather avoid that. The first thing to note, which has been mentioned before but is worth harping on about, is that the actual, physical box (and its contents) is much less useful and important, both in terms of its pragmatic (or monetary) value to individual families as well as the contribution to wider policy aims, than the idea of the box, or at least the potential of the box as an idea. Specifically, "the box," which is to say the logistical process of identifying pre-birth families and handing them this box of whatever can be a useful reference point, a key stage in the perinatal period by which families, health services, social services and third-sector services can be oriented. Bearing in mind that there are already a lot of agencies and schemes in place (the role of health visitors and midwives most obviously), so having specific stages where a family has to come into physical contact with services (even if that's just 1) signing up for a box and 2) receiving the box) is useful. This can involve linking families to specific services, allowing information to be passed from services to families (or vice versa), and linking services to each other. I don't dispute that it's a case of giving freebies to people who don't need them. Ironically, you haven't actually dug deep enough on this point: hardly any families need a baby box, because access to a moses basket or similar is near universal, even in the most deprived communities (at least in my direct experience, and the impression I get speaking to people in other parts of the country. One important exception to this is immigrants/asylum seekers, especially recent ones. Moses baskets tend to last a good amount of time and get passed around family members and close friends, so it's only people lacking that support network that are likely to be lacking) So, in isolation, providing another thing for a baby to sleep in is pointless. Incidentally, the same can't be said for cots, so if you have one going spare I'm sure your local family health clinic/children's charity/clothing bank or similar would appreciate it, or at least be able to direct you to an organisation who would! Anyway, the point is that people don't need boxes. What's useful, and needed, is that by making a thing out of the box you can also use it as an opportunity to pass on a lot of relevant information. An opportunity, in other words, to prioritise the "education" you refer to, since it can now be linked to something specific and tangible, not just another thing in the frightening deluge of information that can accompany pregancy. And because families have to be in contact to request and receive the box, that's two key opportunities to link them to other services, whether it's antenatal classes, parent & infant classes, parenting workshops or whatever. This isn't to say that everyone can and should be referred on to these, but part of the problem is that the families who are most likely to need them are also the ones often least likely to engage regularly (if at all) with services generally, and are often what are euphemistically called "chaotic," which means, amongst other things, that simply knowing or planning for when to be able to conect with them is challenging. So, again, having a specific, material 'thing' - and a free thing at that - which might increase engagement is useful in and of itself. Means testing (or however you determine who "needs" the box- Pissflaps's post doesn't say) puts up an obstruction to this: the goal is to make engagement as easy as possible, to increase the opportunities to form a relationship with families organically. Means testing is also a very blunt tool: it assumes here that the only "need" is financial, but, as is hopefully clear from the above, the financial aspect isn't really what's important here. I mean, obviously poverty is heavily correlated with all sorts of pertinent things like mental health, social capital, knowledge and skills relating to parenting, ability to cope etc, but it's not financial deprivation which you want to measure here. Baby boxes are also an emotional bribe, for want of a better term. Now, I should be clear that I'm not 100% sure how they're going to be co-ordinated in Scotland (whether because that hasn't been announced yet, or because the Scottish Government have been crap at advertising it), so this is very much just my opinion of what would be good and feasible, rather than any endorsement of policy specifics as such. But baby boxes can be a bribe, both to get parents to engage with services, but also to make them more amenable to those services and the people who represent them. Personally, I think it would be best for baby boxes to be given to families directly by their assigned health visitor, as far as this is practical. While it varies wildly, there's a good proportion of people who view their health visitor as, at best, an irritation (and sometmes much worse than that), so creating a moment where they literally give a family a gift would be a nice and helpful way to soften that relationship at an individual level. More generally, I think it also acts as nice moment of social solidarity (which is partly why I feel the universal element is important): everyone, regardless of creed or class, gets this small thing from society/the government to help them get a better start in life. It's a tiny, basically insignificant social leveller, but as a gesture towards a more equal society I think it has some value in and of itself. I keep saying "services," which by the way, makes the whole perinatal landscape appear much neater and more integrated than it is in practice. These things are not joined up anything like as well as they should or could be, encompassing not just health (which is itself not entirely joined up) and social services, but a whole array of ever-changing third-sector organisations, who each have their own (again ever changing) programmes of activities and services offered . Again, that's why having a focal point is useful (and, again, I don't know how likely the ideal I'm suggesting will line up with what happens, but Pissflaps's post was about the general principles, not the specifics nitty-gritty of a policy). Health visitors will, generally, have a good knowledge of their local services, but it's asking a lot for them to constantly keep on top of them and for them to have that knowledge on hand if asked at, say a baby clinic. Again, the box can be an organisation or administrative focal point: if it's known roughly at what stage parents are to receive it, it makes it a lot easier to co-ordinate the type of information that can be passed along with it to make it as relevant as possible for the families, even if it's as simple as a list of free services available in the local area for families with infants 0-3 months. So, Pissflaps, no, you don't need the box. You don't need the baby wipes. You possibly don't even need to be signposted towards other services (although you seem like a kinda open-minded guy who'd enjoy baby yoga/massage classes - although you can probably afford to pay for them). But you need a society where people and the services for them are as integrated as possible. You need a society where people like and trust their health visitors, and where they're keen to engage with services that are available. You need the charities you donate to and the health and care services your taxes pay for to be as accessible as possible. You need your friends, family, neighbours, colleagues, and comrades to be the best parents they can be, and you need their kids to have the best start in life they possibly can. You don't need a box, but you need what that box can do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X7mL6Vywxk&t=172s
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
It's ok everyone Britain is an unstoppable force. Britain cannot be stopped. Its will shapes reality. All hail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Worrying about giving "too much" to new parents is possible the dumbest worry ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Worrying about giving "too much" to new parents is possible the dumbest worry ever. I'm wanting to give Niric's excellent post a proper read when off my phone later but this is easier to counter: a legitimate worry is that giving the same assistance to everyone is a worry if it's at the expense of enhanced, targeted assistance for those that actually need it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I'm wanting to give Niric's excellent post a proper read when off my phone later but this is easier to counter: a legitimate worry is that giving the same assistance to everyone is a worry if it's at the expense of enhanced, targeted assistance for those that actually need it. Given that there's no such thing as a parent who needs literally no interaction with the state it seems to me that establishing that relationship at birth is a sensible idea even if it's through something that is mostly symbolic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Given that there's no such thing as a parent who needs literally no interaction with the state it seems to me that establishing that relationship at birth is a sensible idea even if it's through something that is mostly symbolic. The interaction between the state and a new baby needs to be established long before birth. A 'booking appointment' takes place before week 12 of pregnancy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The interaction between the state and a new baby needs to be established long before birth. I accept your point but I would argue that there's a qualitative difference between the nature of that relationship before and after birth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
Angepain posted:It's ok everyone Britain is an unstoppable force. Britain cannot be stopped. Its will shapes reality. All hail. I hope someone invades and occupies us. Save us from ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Angepain posted:It's ok everyone Britain is an unstoppable force. Britain cannot be stopped. Its will shapes reality. All hail. May really does look like a harpy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
It's impressive that May can give a speech that's so far removed from reality. Britain is kind, generous and outward looking? Lmao Also Pissflaps you are going to have a kid? I could have sworn you said your wife gave birth a few months back. Is this a second kid?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Also Pissflaps you are going to have a kid? I could have sworn you said your wife gave birth a few months back. Is this a second kid? Certain individuals in this forum cannot be trusted with even the scantest personal information but yes this is a second child, though my wife had our first two and a half years ago rather than a few months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/846470962916806656
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
A couple of addenda on baby boxes, then I swear I'll shut up about them, and we can talk about how the First point, I don't think I was clear enough earlier about how the baby box can function as very much a useful facilitator of the education pissflaps proposed as its replacement. By making a bit of a song and dance about this one thing, you can increase the perceived importance of any supplementary material. This makes it a useful point to pass on information in a way that might be more memorable to a parent. Also, essentially assuming everyone is starting from scratch means you can standardise everything. This makes is easier to give information about things people might only know partially, or might think they know but don't/are wrong. That's the distinction between almost everyone having a moses basket (or baby wipes, or whatever else comes with the box) and almost everyone using it in the best possible way. These are not the same thing, as any number of "well my mum said..." stories will attest. Related to this, having it be standardised, and having it be a thing you are given and told how to use, is a much better, much less intimidating, and much less confrontational method of explaining things than finding out what people already have and then telling them how to use something that's already theirs. As I mentioned before, a lot of people already view health visitors (and the many other professionals they may come into contact with) as irritating busybodies, smug and condescending, lecturing them about things they already know (or feel they should know and are embarrassed they don't, but i'll get on to that). No one likes to be told directly how to look after their child, how to set up their home, how to use their equipment. Since the baby box is a thing everyone is given and a thing that comes as a a gift, it helps to reduce that territorial possessiveness, and means that it's easier to give people instructions for without them rolling their eyes. Lastly, it's hard being a parent, as I'm sure Pissflaps is very aware. The difficulties come in many forms, of which financial concerns and material deprivation is only a small part. What's good about the baby box, and what makes its universality appealing, is that it's an (albeit small, albeit limited) official acknowledgement of this, it's the state saying "we know babies are challenging, no matter who you are, so here's a thing to help." This is much more helpful and socially useful than it might appear on first glance. A frequent concern amongst parents, one that cuts across class and income, is that they're struggling to cope, that billions of people manage to bring up babies and make it seem easy, yet they're finding it overwhelming. Letting people know that's OK, that they aren't failures for not knowing things or for finding it mentally exhausting, is really, really important, and just acknowledging that is in and of itself a helpful step. It can also make it easier for people to engage with some form of support, even if that is as simple as joining a play group or massage group or whatever to meet other parents with babies a similar age. Along with "ability to cope", "social isolation" is another major factor in trying to assess wellbeing, and something which affects a lot of parents regardless of income deprivation. Even without factors such as postnatal depression, it can be difficult, both practically and emotionally, to get out and about while pregnant or with a baby/babies. Again the baby box doesn't, as a physical object, help here, but the idea of the baby box, the connotations that a basic universal degree of support is in some ways necessary, should not be dismissed. Niric fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Certain individuals in this forum cannot be trusted with even the scantest personal information but yes this is a second child, though my wife had our first two and a half years ago rather than a few months. Ah time flies, thought you were still a new dad. Congratulations!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
A lot of silly nonsense in Parliament today about who represents the will of the majority of the Scottish people. None of them do! Even the SNP's runaway electoral success is predicated on <50% of the vote. That said, when it's the no-nay-never brigade who are standing on that hill it's hard not to recollect this poll, which probably already appeared in this thread: https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/841929311540125696 To be fair polling still puts No ahead, but most of everything is within the 3% margin of error at the moment -- and doesn't include 16- and 17-year-olds, who along with EU nationals were included in the franchise of the referendum mandate passed today, thanks to the Greens. This was probably SNP policy anyway but it's super-nice to have it in there explicitly, so it can't be traded away in the forthcoming negotiations. ...If there are any. I almost hope there aren't, to find out what the secret SNP contingency plan is. They seem pretty confident in whatever it is they'll pull out their sleeve in mid-April, absent any concessions from Westminster. In response to Sarah Vine's monstrously sexist Daily Mail headline, noted local opposition leader and likely No figurehead Ruth Davidson tweeted this: https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/846637389523140608 Yes Ruth, some kind of rooftop jacuzzi situation is charmingly self-deprecating and will definitely help you connect with the Scottish working class. Also us feminists should definitely just lighten up eh? Nationalism makes me really uncomfortable so I lap stuff like this up: http://www.thenational.scot/news/15181101.Racist_rally_in_Edinburgh_will_be_met_with_mass_protests/ Our nationalists really are different, I keep rubbing my eyes and blinking but they're still there telling Nazis to gently caress off and inviting people to come to our country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
O another thing this week! I mean, it's every two years but we're currently being invaded, blockaded, and bombarded by NATO forces all up and down the West Coast as part of the regular Joint Warrior exercises. Cape Wrath is the only NATO ally site where 500lb+ bombs can be tested, making it a sure magnet to every new-fangled bunker-buster and MOAB for the next couple of weeks.All of the Western Hebrides fall under the 'submarine exercise area' so fishermen beware! Combined forces landings in the southwest simulate D-Day in some projected future hostile country. This year's exercise apparently includes 'artificial intelligence'. I really hope that's a buzzword but find it hard to imagine that the Navy managed to pass the time over the last thirty years without watching the Terminator films. http://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2017/03/28/natos-joint-warrior-exercise-scotland/ Personally I've been expecting the worst since I found out about Windows for Submarines: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ukgovernment/2008/12/17/windows-for-submarines/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/scottish-parliament-votes-for-second-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon?CMP=fb_gu
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:Nationalism makes me really uncomfortable so I lap stuff like this up: Actually that's Tommy Shepherd calling everyone who is white English a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Actually that's Tommy Shepherd calling everyone who is white English a Nazi. What makes you say that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:Nationalism makes me really uncomfortable so I lap stuff like this up: I mean, I like what Tommy Shepherd is saying there, but your "nationalism makes me uncomfortable, except when it doesn't," seems a rather problematic argument Edit: Jedit posted:Actually that's Tommy Shepherd calling everyone who is white English a Nazi. To be fair to Shepherd, he's not quoted as saying anything of the sort: it's entirely the national who're implying the "it's actually all just English racists" thing Niric fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
I mean, it's not like the "SDL" isn't mostly EDL people up for a wee day trip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
Niric posted:To be fair to Shepherd, he's not quoted as saying anything of the sort: it's entirely the national who're implying the "it's actually all just English racists" thing Which surprises me not one jot. Juliet - if you're new to Scottish politics, or Scotland in general, the National is basically the SNP answer to Der Sturmer. Almost every front page is a variant on either "Scotland labours under the hated English yoke as something goes wrong" or "something good happens - the case for Scottish independence".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Yeah plus a bunch of material comparing the English to rats and cockroaches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Juliet Whisky posted:Our nationalists really are different, I keep rubbing my eyes and blinking but they're still there telling Nazis to gently caress off and inviting people to come to our country. Basing an argument on exceptionalism is a really bad place to start from. It's why the SNP would rather you talked about civic nationalism not nationalism
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Basing an argument on exceptionalism is a really bad place to start from. It's why the SNP would rather you talked about civic nationalism not nationalism It's not exceptionalism. Civic nationalism isn't some unique Scottish idea. The SDLP are a civic nationalist party. New Flemish Alliance, Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya & Convergència i Unió are all civic nationalist. That's a weird attack. Hell, one could argue that to some degree the Tories, Labour & Lib Dems are all British civic nationalist to some extent. I've never really been given a convincing explanation of why that's fine & Scottish nationalism is evil or bad. Best attempt I've seen was some Marxist wittering on that somehow the British state, despite all evidence to the contrary over the past 150 years of history, was better suited to "workers of the world uniting".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Nationalism of any sorts is pretty poo poo, to be honest, but likening the SNP to the nazis or trying to conflate Scottish civic nationalism with the bring back hanging, get the immigrants out, refugees not welcome shite you see down south is a bit simplistic too. There absolutely are Scots who are rotten chauvinistic pieces of poo poo, but they're as divided on independence as any other slice of the population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Any movement that sees you blaming 'the others' for your problems is a bad thing. Be that Trump and Mexicans, Brexiters and the EU or the SNP and They all have their place on the Axis of Idiocy that dominates politics today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Instead we should blame ourselves for the problems of the world, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
*massive anti-nazi rally full of scottish independence supports happens* "no but you see it is really the anti-nazis who are the real racists"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:49
|
|