|
gently caress sake https://twitter.com/TheHouseLive/status/1268806554884734976?s=19 Same loving day https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1268819853298860033?s=19 Jose fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 5, 2020 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:B-plot: Data's cat dies and he decides to explore grief  In my head, Data would either write him another Ode or else play/compose a violin piece, and I would cry. E: also Data experiments with a series of new pets - robotic, holographic, Targ, bird, before a chat with Geordi/Troi helps him realise that Spot can't be easily replaced and he needs to take some time. Episode ends on Data cleaning away Spot's toys Failed Imagineer fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
gently caress it I'm out
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:21
|
|
|
Jose posted:gently caress sake Tories gonna Tory Wait, this guy is Labour? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
Maugrim posted:Tories gonna Tory Now I'm not saying the phrenologists are on to something, but whenever there's a headline like that it's *always* accompanied by a head shaped like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:24
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:The only way my morale will be improved by a new Royal Yacht is if we taxpayers all get a time share of it. I bagsy 2 weeks next July. 2 weeks? just how high are you expecting the covid death rate to go?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:25
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:
Less of this pls
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:26
|
|
|
Jose posted:gently caress sake I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
They should start by replacing housing benefit with public housing, getting rid of a £12b subsidy to private landlords who contribute a negative amount.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:33
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it. Wallet Inspector, please paypal me the contents of your wallet so I can inspect it for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:35
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it. Yeah I just read the actual article and it's mostly... Fine? Seems like their strategy is go for headlines that the gammonati will broadly agree with and then propose some decent changes under cover of it. Only works if you have a sympathetic media e: and is a poo poo strategy for the long term because the overton window is a thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:36
|
|
|
Wikipedia suggests his oldest child has autism, so presumably he'd be okay with one of his children getting gently caress all in terms of welfare payments if he isn't able to work due to his autism. [edit] Even if he means something else, this is stupid, since most people (like me, apparently) don't read much beyond the headline
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:36
|
|
|
New Labour tried this approach and all of did was make the public distrust 'scroungers' and 'bogus claimants', which then led to 'and obviously we can't trust Labour to do anything about it, time to vote Conservative'. gently caress me, what's the point of anything. Just let a combination of Covid and hard Brexit kill everyone including me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:42
|
|
|
XMNN posted:gently caress it I'm out Yeah me too. Thanks to OwlFancier for reminding me earlier this week that dilemmas over giving people money should go "Do they need money? Do you have spare money? Done." Now someone get on and remind the Labour Party of the same thing. Look ooh symbolic ooooh:
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A This was a fascinating video to watch, thank you for linking it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I don't like the rhetoric, but if you look at the actual policy proposals they are about getting rid of means tests, which seems good. If they're trying to use National Insurance arguments to restore Universality, I'll wince a bit but I'll take it. it's a truism as old as the internet that people don't read past the headline. but I think recently on this forum it's been getting worse. hypothesis is that it's because the old custom of copying & pasting the whole article text has been usurped by embedding a tweet. hardly nobody is actually clicking on the links are they? so, suggestion for the mods. make a rule that people have to copy the article, or at least the relevant parts they are wanting us to take an interest in if it's a 10,000 word epic. no-one ever cared before that was technically a copyright breach, and won't care now. could volunteer this thread as a guinea pig before deciding to make it a forum wide rule. what do people think? quote:“In a way, if you look at eligibility for Universal Credit, people are not wrong. I'm seeing a lot of good suggestions, that were to be fair not far from the 2 Corbyn era manifestos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:52
|
|
|
kingturnip posted:
most people have never heard of, never mind read Politics Home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Fair points, but this article doesn't so much elaborate on the headline as restate it, along side a bunch of semi-related good things. What does "if you have made greater contributions to the system, there is an argument that you should receive more out of that system" mean? Without elaboration, it just sounds like the dogwhistle that we all reacted to in the headline. It sounds like it could be a prelude to a needs based system rather than a means based one - e.g. a pandemic has ruined your income, so you can have benefits based on what you need (i.e. your outgoings), and regardless of things like savings cutoffs and child limits as you say. But that still isn't really based on greater contributions - if you just started living in expensive London when the pandemic (or regular scheduled capitalism recession) hits, you might not have contributed much yet. Or is it an argument for universalism? But again the more in = more out seems at odds with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
Tsietisin posted:This was a fascinating video to watch, thank you for linking it. Given that he was the Education Secretary responsible for pushing through the £9k/year fees, I'm not sure I'm interested in listening to what David Willetts has to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:02
|
|
|
"what you put in should be linked to what you get out" is loving nonsense. The people who put in more to the Welfare State - through taxes - are the loving people who least need it. If you are earning enough that you are paying high taxes you do not need more out of it than someone who is disabled or unemployed. If anything there should be a loving inverse link.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
I have a physical need to see the tweet that this was in response to: https://twitter.com/inthesedeserts/status/1268312102877478913 Cerv posted:it's a truism as old as the internet that people don't read past the headline. but I think recently on this forum it's been getting worse. But yes, I agree with the sentiment, not sure about a hard and fast rule yet, but by comparison remember every headline about Labour during the Corbyn years of "Holocaust Denier Corbyn Conference!" and it turns out that an Israeli activist who said "Holocaust denial is legal in the UK, but you don't have to listen to them, respond to them, or give them a platform" was at a conference that Corbyn attended the following day. These headlines are intended to build up a toxic atmosphere, just in slightly different ways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A He said that the wage benefits tied to location being fully captured are fully negated by the housing costs is a failure of the market. Isn't it a perfect "success" of the market that if labour is mobile and real estate is not that the benefit of the location advantage accrues to the capitalist who controls that location...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:08
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Fair points, but this article doesn't so much elaborate on the headline as restate it, along side a bunch of semi-related good things. my reading is it's an argument for universalism. everyone is eligible without means tests and caps and so on, and at a higher level that now with leaves people destitute. but on top of that can pay out more to people who've paid more in. this concept already exists in the state pension which counts your NI contribution years. this is framed as a way to sell the concept of state social security to people who are currently paying in, but not receiving payouts out who otherwise just see it as a wealth transfer from themselves to "scroungers".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Cerv posted:it's a truism as old as the internet that people don't read past the headline. but I think recently on this forum it's been getting worse. It's a bad sign for Labour in general, though, that left-wing goons are looking at a headline like that, written about a Labour Shadow Cabinet member, and thinking "Yes, that sounds like something one of Keir's cronies would say"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's still a poo poo headline for assholes, but that'll be on the subeditor or whoever they've streamlined that down to in this exciting age of digital entreprejournalism. if I could ban headlines as a concept I would
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
Maugrim posted:Yeah I just read the actual article and it's mostly... Fine? This is exactly what New Labour always used to do. As you say though - rhetoric matters. It's exactly how we end up with the next Tory government using the exact same rhetoric to justify doing the really bad things, because it becomes normalised. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
Cerv posted:my reading is it's an argument for universalism. everyone is eligible without means tests and caps and so on, and at a higher level that now with leaves people destitute. You can then generalize that the poor person in London will have on average paid more in, they'll be earning higher average wages but paying much more in rent than the person in Nottingham, so you can then make a case that the person in London probably has a case for a higher base income. That's a generalization though and doing it purely on contribution leaves the poor person in London who can't work poo poo out of luck, so it has to be based on regional cost of living base rates as well assumptions about their cost of living from what that specific person has paid in. Engels posted:As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Fair points, but this article doesn't so much elaborate on the headline as restate it, along side a bunch of semi-related good things. quote:...only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
Rhetoric is important, but is that headline Rhetoric a result of the site editor or the minister? The idea of 'if most people pay taxes but don't get any welfare benefits, they are more likely to otherize people on benefits than if they are receiving benefits theirselves' is one of the reasons for a pivot to UBI
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:This is exactly what New Labour always used to do. No, it isn't, because they loved means tests. New Labour welfare policies were shittier than their rhetoric, if anything. These policies are quite decent, although I'd like to see more. I agree on your general point about the long term bad effects of rhetoric, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
Waiting for the ronya post about how this is actually more progressive than corbyn's 2017 policy and asking why we weren't angry then. It does underline the problems of rhetoric and trust though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:37
|
|
|
We've not even reached the first phase ofquote:The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it. Whether we go through that phase or something else, talk of contribution isn't inherently reactionary, it's just been solidly co-opted by reactionaries over the past few decades as the press stirred a moral panic about single mothers and idle poor and benefits street, rather than buy to let landlords and factory owners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
lmao check out some of the names on this https://twitter.com/gabrielquotes/status/1268822601561972739?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
The collapse of Labour as a party of labour illustrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A&t=2310s
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
Cerv posted:my reading is it's an argument for universalism. everyone is eligible without means tests and caps and so on, and at a higher level that now with leaves people destitute. Hmmm. I guess it's "paying in more" that's ambiguous. For the NI-pension link, the contributions are defined across the working life. For benefits that might be needed at any time, it's not so clear cut. Do we mean paying in more in total, in which case people starting out get screwed over, which is in keeping with the lower minimum wage for young people, but at odds with how commercial insurance works? Or do we mean paying in more per unit time, which is more like insurance, where you can pay more per month to get more cover, but you get paid out right away if needed? But can lead to a rich young person getting more out in total than a poor person who makes it to death without happening to need it. Basically my gripe is solely with the "have paid in more" phrasing, which I find hard to make sense of (sorry cerv I know this isn't your policy that you must defend, just thinking out loud really) Cerv posted:undoubtably Henry Charles Newspaper III, inventor of the newspaper: "And there will be a line at the head of each article, usefully summarising its contents" Modern people: "How can we obscure this article as much as possible while still gaining clicks, preferably by using only words that can each be multiple different parts of speech?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:42
|
|
|
lol scottish labour https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1268827486449733632?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:Rhetoric is important, but is that headline Rhetoric a result of the site editor or the minister? the headline is obviously something singled out from the interview, and perhaps if they had chosen a different quote it would have been received differently, but he did say you should get more out if you put more in quote:“I want simplicity, I don’t think necessarily Universal Credit does that. We need a system where everyone feels it’s available to them. When people put in, they get the right amount of support out of it. And if you put more in, you get more out of it. But it genuinely is there for everybody. And at the same time gives dignity and respect to people with disabilities who won’t be able to participate in the labour market in the same way,” he says.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jsternweiner/status/1268843452776828929?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 10:54
|
|
|
good thread on why this policy and rhetoric is loving stupid https://twitter.com/stavvers/status/1268842343974735875?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
Bobstar posted:(sorry cerv I know this isn't your policy that you must defend, just thinking out loud really) don't apologise. I'm just thinking out loud too. yours & Guavanaut's last post both really helpful
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 11:06
|
|