|
So is Jeremy Hunt basically Prime Minister now? What's going on.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
kecske posted:this is a 'choose what type of hammer we use to smash your dick & balls' kind of decision
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? The thread regulars are very jaded on Labour, but essentially its 'better' in the sense of 'less bad' but it's not by any means 'good'. Especially as Starmer will use this as vindication for where he took the party, despite it being purely the tories imploding that has caused this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:56
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? It's like being asked to choose between eating two almost identical shits. Sure, one might be half a gram lighter but at the end of the day it is still poo poo, just say no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:56
|
|
|
Not means testing stuff is good, thats why people using the NHS aren't considered scroungers. Having a benefit just for those that need it makes people who don't get it a bit spiteful. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:So is Jeremy Hunt basically Prime Minister now? What's going on. Ahem. Jeremy oval office, puhleassse. look-at-this-handsome-bastard tax 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
yesssss
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
I had money on Hunt being Tory leader after Johnson. Going to be so raging if they just appoint him now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
My my, didn't the off-licence do well this weekend. Yes, I'm saying she's drunk at 11am, what of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:04
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:I had money on Hunt being Tory leader after Johnson. Going to be so raging if they just appoint him now. Technically he would still be Tory leader after Johnson!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I am not sure that's comparable. Priests get a job, ready access to victims, and security for their time investment. Trans women just get poo poo. Even from a theoretical actual TERF (as opposed to FART) perspective, the idea makes no sense, as a man pretending to be a woman would be trading the most powerful identity in favor of the weakest one, for no reason at all, seeing as men are perfectly able to be sexually abusive for years with no consequence within our current society. One thing I know as absolute fact and it’s that Rowling and her ilk are so posh that they have no idea who cleans public bathrooms. Most of the time it’s men. All a man needs to do to get into the ladies is put on high viz with cleaner on it. Idk if they’ve gone back to it but at one point I did get the British terfs at least to shut the gently caress up about kids in gyms by proving to the Uber twats that children (under 16s) are not allowed in shared gym changing rooms and haven’t been since Chris Benoit and the roid rage scare freaked out their insurance companies. They don’t have anything to say when you just tell them to read the terms and conditions of their membership and that little Jessica should be getting changed at home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hewantswealth/status/1581723783303307264
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:So is Jeremy Hunt basically Prime Minister now? What's going on. It does seem like this is the case. Gonna be a very weird dynamic if Truss actually stays in office for the next couple of years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I don’t know how my hedged statement where I acknowledge there will probably be some horrible catch really shows my love for means testing. I just don’t love transfers of public funds to the rich. Because posts don't exist in a vacuum and there is an observable pattern to yours
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
I hope she stays in power for at least 48 hours. I want one final PMQ session with Truss
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Tax them more. That runs into the "but the rich are good at finding ways to avoid taxes", okay, but if they're (or their accountants) are that smart then they can work their way around any 'light touch' means testing system too, whereas the most marginalized will be put off by the paperwork. 100% tax them more. That’s a no brainer. But it won’t happen with Tories. The marginalised shouldn’t need to do paperwork if there is a presumption that everybody not in the higher/additional rate of tax is eligible. I can’t imagine that if Corbyn/McDonnell laid out a plan for energy bill support, but added the caveat that “nobody earning over £150,000 a year will be eligible for this help”, that anyone would be clutching pearls about means testing. Transferring public funds to the richest in society is a scandal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1581965036754391040
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:The thread regulars are very jaded on Labour, but essentially its 'better' in the sense of 'less bad' but it's not by any means 'good'. Especially as Starmer will use this as vindication for where he took the party, despite it being purely the tories imploding that has caused this. Unless you're surviving on benefits, in prison, a refugee or some other group being thrown under the bus as Labour outflank the Tories on the right in which case it's "worse" in the sense of "more bad"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Named ranges are absolute magic for spreadsheets. They make formulae so much more readable and easy to alter. E: Although they are just reinventing variables for a system that previously relied entirely on direct pointers to memory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1581959225311252480
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
Convex posted:=VLOOKUP("value to look up", $A$1:$G$2000 (where column 'A' contains the value to be looked up, and one of the columns 'B-G' includes values to be pulled, 2 (or however many columns need to be counted right from column A to get to the column with result values in), false) Maybe it's just because it's a Monday, but what's with the '$2000' bit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:100% tax them more. That’s a no brainer. But it won’t happen with Tories. The criticism is of means testing in the context of the two largest parties in the UK now. Means testing is bad for the multitude of reasons already pointed out to you, so it doesn't matter if it might be good in the non-existent reality where Tories or Labour give a gently caress about progressive taxation and the economy isn't entirely based around transferring public funds to the richest in society. e: and this thread has seen plenty of criticism of Corbyn/McDonnell economic proposals Tarnop fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? We did that in 1997. Look where it got us. The Blairites will take left support for them for granted, as they did then, and take it as an endorsement of their position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1581967048581992448
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:One thing I know as absolute fact and it’s that Rowling and her ilk are so posh that they have no idea who cleans public bathrooms. Most of the time it’s men. All a man needs to do to get into the ladies is put on high viz with cleaner on it. Halisnacks posted:Transferring public funds to the richest in society is a scandal. feedmegin posted:Maybe it's just because it's a Monday, but what's with the '$2000' bit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
My "definitely still PM" announcement is raising a lot of questions already answered by etcetc
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
this looks like... actual progress? how the hell are the tories going to allow this through parliament? feedmegin posted:Maybe it's just because it's a Monday, but what's with the '$2000' bit? this is a number to decide how long the table can get before the formula breaks and you ignore all the rows after. I think you can just use $A:$G to select the whole column but i haven't tried that with vlookup (this post brought to you by index match crew)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:Because posts don't exist in a vacuum and there is an observable pattern to yours My posts are like 80% hating the Tories and 20% arguing Starmer’s Labour will be better than the Tories, while acknowledging that Starmer is still poo poo. I’ll shut up about the latter as it’s not a productive discussion here, but I don’t think asking how a lower proportion of public spending can end up in the rich’s bank accounts should be off limits. Yes, the answer ought to be “higher and more progressive taxes”; but under the Tories that answer is not available to us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Maybe it's just because it's a Monday, but what's with the '$2000' bit? In that example the lookup is looking at an array from columns A-G, from rows 1-2000 ($ sign means the rows don't change when you autofill the formula to other cells), it's looking for the number 7, and only returning exact matches E;fb of course
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, you get the sense that they don't really exist in the same reality as everyone else. I suppose you could focus on welfare, but not in the means testing sense. We could start with housing benefit, which is just a direct transfer of public funds to landlords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:39
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Maybe it's just because it's a Monday, but what's with the '$2000' bit? That's how you fix a column/row in excel, the dollar sign acts as an anchor so that when you copy the formula it will still look at that range. Edit just use index/match vlookup is for scrubs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I don’t think asking how a lower proportion of public spending can end up in the rich’s bank accounts should be off limits. Yes, the answer ought to be “higher and more progressive taxes”; but under the Tories that answer is not available to us. How many deaths of vulnerable people would you accept to achieve this goal? If the answer is 0 then means testing is not the way
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1581966535836725250
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:43
|
|
|
Keith’s PMQ zingers about whether he should be addressing Truss or the Chancellor basically write themselves. Twitter is going to be unbearable (more than usual).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Named ranges are absolute magic for spreadsheets. They make formulae so much more readable and easy to alter. Great until you have around 200 of them all with really similar names because you are lazy as poo poo, and you need to keep referring back to check what cells have been defined with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
The fundamental problem with means testing welfare is that it instantly restructures a service's incentive system around finding reasons not to help people. It's fundamentally corrosive to the very principle of a social safety net for all who fall into it. Like others have said, just stick to taxation as a discrete system for taking away money from those who have too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:My posts are like 80% hating the Tories and 20% arguing Starmer’s Labour will be better than the Tories, while acknowledging that Starmer is still poo poo. Under the Tories nothing we want is available to us. If your plan starts with "assume the Tories are still in power, but we can get them to" then it's inherently a wild fantasy. Why not fantasise that they're not instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
kecske posted:this is a 'choose what type of hammer we use to smash your dick & balls' kind of decision It could be the difference between a tendon hammer and a thunder hammer (S10 D3 AP-4)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Tax them more. That runs into the "but the rich are good at finding ways to avoid taxes", okay, but if they're (or their accountants) are that smart then they can work their way around any 'light touch' means testing system too, whereas the most marginalized will be put off by the paperwork. You can also give the rich very easy, legal ways of avoiding high tax rates that none the less direct money in socially useful ways. In the 1950s the top rate of personal tax in the USA was over 90 per cent (on income over the equivalent of about $2mil today - imagine that!). But not many of those eligible for paying that rate actually paid that, because they were offered alternatives such as paying local (city/county-level) taxes on that income at a lower rate, could put that income into purpose-made government bonds (for infrastructure, mostly) or approved corporate investment schemes (mostly funding the US military/aeronautical sector). The same went for the 50+% top rate of corporation tax, which basically only applied to anything that companies couldn't push into R&D, asset renewal, productivity/capacity expansion, wage increases and so on and so stood as pure profit. The thinking was "if you're not going to spend this money on what we've deemed to be socially useful things when given the chance, then drat right we're going take most of it away from you in tax!" Unsurprisingly the era of that tax system coincided with massive rises in living standards, huge infrastructure spending and unparalleled industrial and economic investment and research in the USA. E: This is also one of the many reasons why the Laffer Curve is stupid - it's predicated on the idea that taxes are solely (or primarily) about raising revenue, rather than being much more useful at directing it. BalloonFish fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Great until you have around 200 of them all with really similar names because you are lazy as poo poo, and you need to keep referring back to check what cells have been defined with them. Then don't... Do that? It's not like the situation you've described is much worse than having to go back and look at what's in what cells because you have a pile of meaningless columns and rows
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:52
|
|