|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Can I make a modest proposal that we stop using the word "austerity" to describe Tory policy since 2010 and call it what is - "Taking money from the poorest to give it to the richest". Not the snappiest title admittedly, but I think it's something that really needs to be drilled into everyone. e: 466 - The number of the Beast post-cuts.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
More money for us, and gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
More money for us, you might die but we don't care
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Not only do we not care, but we'll also stick flammable cladding on your high-rise because you're spoiling our view.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:31
|
|
Corrode posted:Yeah the fire service, like the rest of local government, is getting slaughtered by cuts. No matter how many "efficiency programmes" are put in place, they can't keep up with the pace of the cuts in fire grant. Just to put things in context, during the coalition gov they cut funding by 30%. Their proposals they were pushing before the election were a further 20% of cuts. During May's time as home secretary she oversaw policies that reduced the number of frontline firefighters by 10,000. That's not even counting the number of backroom staff that were also cut, which in turn led to the responsibilities of the fire fighters being extended to all sorts of administrative tasks that they never had to do before. And then of course there's been the subtle moves they've made to change the existing agreements and conditions of employment and the attempts to do some backdoor privatisation of the service. It's utter shite. And I hate it takes something like this to bring it into the public debate.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Can I make a modest proposal that we stop using the word "austerity" to describe Tory policy since 2010 and call it what is - "Taking money from the poorest to give it to the richest". Not the snappiest title admittedly, but I think it's something that really needs to be drilled into everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:37
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Can I make a modest proposal that we stop using the word "austerity" to describe Tory policy since 2010 and call it what is - "Taking money from the poorest to give it to the richest". Not the snappiest title admittedly, but I think it's something that really needs to be drilled into everyone. Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor" gently caress off nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Can I make a modest proposal that we stop using the word "austerity" to describe Tory policy since 2010 and call it what is - "Taking money from the poorest to give it to the richest". Not the snappiest title admittedly, but I think it's something that really needs to be drilled into everyone. I still remember hearing Cameron on the telly use it and thinking "oh that's what they're calling it now"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor" gently caress off nazi and gently caress off economically illiterate shithead. You don't get to *become* a wealth creator if your house burns down. Given its total lack of supporting data as a position, and now extensive data demonstrating its impact, it's safe to say Austerity is either theft or your opinion on what theft is becomes ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Y'all would like my mother, to quote her after having been told about the fire: "Can't they just shoot them(Tories) all?"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Can I make a modest proposal that we stop using the word "austerity" to describe Tory policy since 2010 and call it what is - "Taking money from the poorest to give it to the richest". Not the snappiest title admittedly, but I think it's something that really needs to be drilled into everyone. It was put really well in this article: quote:Reversification is just as often at work with words whose meaning seems plain. That’s the case with “austerity,” perhaps the strangest piece of political-economic vocabulary to have come along in my lifetime. In everyday life, “austere” means simple, strict, severe. But that general quality doesn’t really refer to anything tangible, which is a problem, since what we’re talking about here is spending cuts. Funds are either cut or they aren’t. The word “austerity” reflects an attempt to make something moral-sounding and value-based out of specific reductions in government spending that result in specific losses to specific people. For people who don’t use any of the affected services—for the rich, that is—these cuts may have no downside. They’re a case of you lose, we win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor" Why can't you fall into a vat of pig poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Y'all would like my mother, to quote her after having been told about the fire: "Can't they just shoot them(Tories) all?" Buy her an account she'll fit right in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
gently caress! My partner knows people who died in the fire, I've just been told. gently caress everyone who had anything to do with this and gently caress tories for being such assholes. gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
The best place for libertarian ubermensch GaussianCopula is on your ignore list. I've tried arguing with him in Europol and guarantee you there's no point whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:A few things here. Yeah I wasn't so much suggesting it as a solution that would have prevented this, I was more wondering if sprinklers would have helped at all when the exterior was on fire - would they slow things enough that the fire brigade could just douse the exterior without having to direct water into the rooms? Or would it make basically no difference at all with a fire of that scale trying to get in? I'm just curious if the room being wet could prevent the fire from gaining a foothold - ignoring the fact this is going on in every room on that side of the building and the water system couldn't cope. Like would it have helped, at all? (I get that it would have helped stop the fire from starting in the first place)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Is there evidence linking the fire to local government spending cuts? Corbyn is all over the news saying vaguely that but I haven't heard anything
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Is there evidence linking local cuts to the fire? Corbyn is all over the news saying vaguely that but I haven't heard anything dude there's torys loving fillibustering fire safety standard hearings Flayer posted:Last year saw the first year on year increase in fire related deaths since the 1950s. I've gone through the data on this and it checks out, also the growth of fire deaths appears an unusually high % this year compared to trend but a single year is just noise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Is there evidence linking the fire to local government spending cuts? Corbyn is all over the news saying vaguely that but I haven't heard anything it isn't spending, it is legislation and regulation which could have caught this fire before it became an issue corbyn proposed such regulation. the tories rejected it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
From what I heard on the radio it sounds like fire regulations are woefully inadequate. The outside part of the cladding has to be fire resistant, but the stuff inside doesn't, which may be why the cladding went up so quickly. May's new chief of staff promised a review into fire regulations last year but never did it. The Conservatives in general have also repeatedly blocked regulations that could have helped (such as mandatory sprinklers and giving information to local fire services) in the name of cutting red tape (and replacing it with highly flammable cladding). So the contractor may actually be telling the truth when they say they complied with regulations, it's just that the regulations as they currently exist allow you to build a huge bonfire and call it a home for hundreds of people. Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
as an aside to that, can somebody please cut phillip davies tongue out next time the oval office tries to filibuster? we aren't yanks, he's not northern irish, it's weird and pathetic. Women's rights and fire safety are not appropriate subjects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah I wasn't so much suggesting it as a solution that would have prevented this, I was more wondering if sprinklers would have helped at all when the exterior was on fire - would they slow things enough that the fire brigade could just douse the exterior without having to direct water into the rooms? Or would it make basically no difference at all with a fire of that scale trying to get in? Once the fire reached the massive scale we see in the pictures, if it did penetrate the units from the outside, a sprinkler system would not have helped in any way. On the other hand, the exterior fire could very well have not penetrated the building at all. It is quite possible that the interior fire and exterior fire were separate beasts. There was a fire somewhere in the middle east last year where a huge amount of exterior siding went up in flames, but the fire never penetrated the building and the interior was relatively undamaged. So one possible explanation of the fire is that it started inside the building and then spread separately throughout the interior floors while the fire on the exterior while visually terrifying may not have actually caused any real damage. In this case a sprinkler system would have slowed the interior fire spread and probably would have saved lives. edit: Wow, my very first AV, thanks annon UKMT goon. SpaceCadetBob fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:From what I heard on the radio it sounds like fire regulations are woefully inadequate. The outside part of the cladding has to be fire resistant, but the stuff inside doesn't, which may be why the cladding went up so quickly. May's new chief of staff promised a review into fire regulations last year but never did it. The Conservatives in general have also repeatedly blocked regulations that could have helped (such as mandatory sprinklers and giving information to local fire services) in the name of cutting red tape (and replacing it with highly flammable cladding).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor" Actually actually, given the sales of public assets at knockdown prices and continued strip-mining of the public sector for anything of value, it's taking from the poor to give to the rich. But you know this and don't care because you're a gross vampire, so gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Peston's take on Corbynomics.quote:Michael Gove's defence of this government's austerity, that it would protect the next generation from the risk that paying crippling interest payments on a swollen national debt would hobble their public services, is dubious both politically and economically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Actually it would be either "taking less money from the rich to give to the poor" or "taking less money from future generations to give to the poor" Wow an actual austerity fan. Piss off you loving dinosaur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
quote:The company behind the refurbishment work, Rydon, said that the cladding and other changes had been made to help with "improving thermal insulation and modernising the exterior of the building". Building was very warm, mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:Peston's take on Corbynomics. If instead they said "building infrastructure generates jobs immediately - since you need welders and builders to actually make roads and houses - and also contributes to growth in the long run, since it allows people to move nearer to their jobs, helps other people get goods to market, etc" then you could give a flavour of the underlying argument and let people assess this stuff on their own. fake edit: you could also point out that interest charges on government debt are at 500-year lows which means virtually any quantity of growth, no matter how anaemic, is going to be enough to shrink the burden of the debt in real terms even if we only ever pay off the interest and never the capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Building was very warm, mission accomplished. I feel like a burned out tower block is very representative of the modern approach to housing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Only if some of the debris fell into dumpsters and caused them to start burning as well
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
BBC news live updates have a picto-graphic stating that the fire possibly started on the 4th residential floor, which would be the 8th floor overall in the building. That would be significant as 80' up should preclude most sorts of external fire sources. This leads credence to the theory that the fire started in an interior residential unit, and spread from there. If this is the case then the fire service would then begin attempting to determine how the fire got from the 8th floor to the 9th, as the first vertical jump is the most important in understanding why this fire got so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Zephro posted:This is good but one of the problems with these analyses is they never explain the reasoning behind them, which is much more useful than just saying "borrowing to build infrastructure is cool and good" good points, but I think the fact that people like Peston are coming out and saying that Corbyn's economics are cool and good is more important for winning over people than the actual points he's making in favour. Hopefully we'll see more people on TV putting forward a positive argument for Corbyn and Labour in the future now that the narrative has shifted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/875040919803879428 https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/875039205965148160
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
It should be quite easy to make the case that the current plan isn't working when you can present clear graphs of declining real wages, cuts to services that aren't resulting in people having more left over after tax etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Just to put things in context, during the coalition gov they cut funding by 30%. Their proposals they were pushing before the election were a further 20% of cuts. This is the great lie of "protecting frontline services". How're the police meant to solve crimes when the people who keep all the evidence in order got sacked? How do doctors diagnose people when all their lab staff had to move to berlin for a decent wage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/875040919803879428 Even in death Farron fails to do anything of note, doubt it'll get much news today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
For a kindly pacifist Corbyn is really good at putting his rivals in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/875040919803879428 lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 18:28
|
|
