|
Like I said, oval office took the job because the Chancellor is incredibly powerful in a government where the PM has no authority. He can basically dictate policy via the power of the purse and it's impossible for Truss to do anything about it. See the end of the Blair premiership for a less extreme example of the same dynamic. Whether or not this situation is tenable for longer than it takes the most ruthless coup-organising party in history to organise a coup is another question. The markets seem to like it though, lol.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Dabir posted:Named ranges are absolute magic for spreadsheets. They make formulae so much more readable and easy to alter. Named ranges are spreadsheet crime and make anybody else who has to pick up and interpet/maintain a workbook absolutely hate the author.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
Getting rid of Section 21 seems... good? Why are they doing this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
I will never use meaningful variable names.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Named ranges are spreadsheet crime and make anybody else who has to pick up and interpet/maintain a workbook absolutely hate the author. Ah yes $C2*H$4+SUM("Sheet13 (Copy)"!A8:D9) so much more readable thank you very much
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:I will never use meaningful variable names. The first ever legacy code maintenance task I was given involved tens of thousands of lines written by someone who never used more than two characters for a variable name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
Tigey posted:Getting rid of Section 21 seems... good? putting the squeeze on small time landlords might lead to more conglomeration among the big guys
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
Tarnop posted:The first ever legacy code maintenance task I was given involved tens of thousands of lines written by someone who never used more than two characters for a variable name. An absolute bastard in my job prior to me wrote a crucial piece of VB which automated days worth of manual work in my team. No one can understand it as every variable is x1, x2, x3 etc, so in a sense it's job creation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Dabir posted: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? Because we’re discussing this in the context where the Tory chancellor is specifically indicating he will change the energy bill support policy to make it more targeted. Tarnop posted: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 The answer is indeed 0. Would making people who currently pay 45% tax on some of their income (i.e. those who earn >£150K) ineligible for this benefit result in the deaths of vulnerable people? I have a hard time imagining that edge case. But if it exists, okay I will agree it is not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:03
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:An absolute bastard in my job prior to me wrote a crucial piece of VB which automated days worth of manual work in my team. No one can understand it as every variable is x1, x2, x3 etc, so in a sense it's job creation. Management thought my guy was a superstar and everyone else sucked because productivity would (appear to) tank in his former team whenever he moved to a new project.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
Make your data entry goons edit a .CSV - PR to github- GitHub action runs on merge with PUT filename.csv/ copy into / grants etc - brother you've got yourself a database.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:08
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:The answer is indeed 0. Would making people who currently pay 45% tax on some of their income (i.e. those who earn >£150K) ineligible for this benefit result in the deaths of vulnerable people? I have a hard time imagining that edge case. But if it exists, okay I will agree it is not worth it. Computer errors, mistakes in calculation that overlook something or double count something, human error, deliberate malice...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
Crymetimeboys posted:Shouldn't the *left* be on board with supporting Starmer and his Blairite cabinet as being better than the Tories? I feel that if you're going to vote for Labour regardless of their policies as some sort of harm reduction measure, the most important thing to do is to keep quiet about it. Tell them that you have no intention of voting for them unless they move to the left then do whatever you feel you have to do in the privacy of the voting booth. If they think they can take you for granted you can kiss goodbye to any sort of leverage you may have, however minimal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Computer errors, mistakes in calculation that overlook something or double count something, human error, deliberate malice... Or, as has been explained multiple times to Halisnacks already, the trajectory of all means-testing which is to divide people into the deserving and undeserving and then repeatedly shrink the former
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
Dabir posted:Computer errors, mistakes in calculation that overlook something or double count something, human error, deliberate malice... Everybody could receive the benefit and then it could be clawed back through self-assessment, so it is effectively a tax, where those risks you mention already exist I suppose, but you could get on the line with HMRC to avoid overpaying the tax before it is due. And the most vulnerable (generally) wouldn’t being do self-assessment in the first place (I do appreciate there are definitely exceptions here, e.g. many of the self-employed). But is the logical conclusion that every single benefit should be dispersed to everyone regardless of how high-income and wealthy they are? Should the rich receive universal credit? I’m open minded to the answer being yes, but it seems suboptimal. Edit: Tarnop posted:Or, as has been explained multiple times to Halisnacks already, the trajectory of all means-testing which is to divide people into the deserving and undeserving and then repeatedly shrink the former Is it means-testing in the generally understood sense if the proposal is literally “the richest in society are not eligible”? Maybe the term means-testing is a distraction here. If there is absolutely no progressive means to avoid giving public funds to the rich without unintentionally excluding those who will suffer, then okay, I agree it is not worth it. I don’t think it is worth more death or destitution, for any number of people. Halisnacks fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Here we go… https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1581978257628753921
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Everybody could receive the benefit and then it could be clawed back through self-assessment, so it is effectively a tax, where those risks you mention already exist I suppose, but you could get on the line with HMRC to avoid overpaying the tax before it is due. And the most vulnerable (generally) wouldn’t being do self-assessment in the first place (I do appreciate there are definitely exceptions here, e.g. many of the self-employed). What is the benefit of it being "effectively a tax" vs it just being actually tax?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
One thing you aren't accounting for is the administrative burden of proving you're eligible. Poor people working 2-3 jobs while raising kids don't have a lot of time or energy for filling in forms and gathering proof of income and shite. Okay so you're now saying give the benefit to everyone and then claw that money back from the rich through... Self reporting income brackets? Which yeah comes out the same as just taxing the rich more and yet is more complex and prone to error
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1581979173597630464
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:What is the benefit of it being "effectively a tax" vs it just being actually tax? I am writing in the context where Hunt has said he will make it more targeted come Spring 2023. Of course it should be a tax, that’s just probably not what will happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
Tigey posted:Getting rid of Section 21 seems... good? it was in the 2019 Tory manifesto as part of Johnson's "Better Deal for Renters" there is something of a bipartisan consensus that it has to go, due to 1) increasing share of renters, which increases the cost of administering a tricky tenancy law system 2) an upcoming cost bump where the UK would like to compel owners to invest in thermal insulation of the housing stock ronya fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
In the context that Hunt has said he will make it more targeted, Hunt is a Tory oval office doing Tory things and why are we having this argument, are you going to write to him and tell him the best way to do it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I’m open minded to the answer being yes, but it seems suboptimal. More suboptimal than the current situation where every means-tested service has a byzantine bureaucracy with targets to make sure that as many people as possible are denied access to that service? The incentive to deny thing has already been explained to you. Do you think it's more optimal to build and maintain a proxy for taxation as part of every means tested service? Do you think the outcomes are more optimal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1581988771679305728
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:But is the logical conclusion that every single benefit should be dispersed to everyone regardless of how high-income and wealthy they are? Should the rich receive universal credit? I think this is the problem in your reasoning. You're approaching this like the government's job is to optimise the money numbers in as few operations as possible. It's not. The job of the government is to implement principles. Set aside the precise numbers and thresholds and think only in terms of principle. We want the following: - Everyone gets enough to live on, no matter what. This is not negotiable - Work beyond the minimum should be rewarded, BUT - If you're taking and sitting on enough wealth that it's damaging society, we take it away with this new thing we invented called "taxes" You are asking for the following: - Everyone gets enough to live on, but if we think you don't need it, you shouldn't get anything from us Do you see the problem with a society that accepts that last idea?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Maugrim posted:In the context that Hunt has said he will make it more targeted, Hunt is a Tory oval office doing Tory things and why are we having this argument, are you going to write to him and tell him the best way to do it? I’m sorry for discussing something the U.K. chancellor said in the U.K. politics thread without committing to writing the chancellor a letter. I started by believing that it is possible to dole out tens (or hundreds) of billions in public funds in more or less progressive ways. The consensus seems to be that it is in fact impossible, so I’ll let it go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
Mordaunt is trying to avoid the 'backstabber' taint by being outwardly supportive while very carefully not ruling out wanting to be PM once Truss is eventually handed the whiskey and revolver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
The other good things about giving everybody benefits regardless of their wealth is that the wealthy are fewer in number so them getting a benefit isn't very expensive, and the wealthy have more political power than the poor, so when they get a benefit the chance of that benefit sticking around is greater. Give everyone benefits universally and use progressive taxation to cover the costs, that's the optimal solution. Trying to figure out exactly who should get a benefit is expensive and inaccurate, and risks the people who need the benefit most going without.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
Just going back to this tweet. "The regicide nature of Conservatives..." Is Nadine saying that Tories lust for the blood of Kings and queen's? Which might explain Liz killing Liz. I also take it that no Tory has commented on the fact that ousting Truss within a month of her being made Prime Minister by the Conservative party membership makes them look awfully incompetent. Chinese Gordon posted:Mordaunt is trying to avoid the 'backstabber' taint by being outwardly supportive while very carefully not ruling out wanting to be PM once Truss is eventually handed the whiskey and revolver. If that did happen, Truss would shoot herself without having even opened the bottle of Whiskey*, let alone drunk any of it. She likes going out dry, you see. * = And not just because she couldn't get past the childproof cap. The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Oct 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Just going back to this tweet. 1) I think it's more that the tories consider their own PMs to be, uh, royalty. Boris was Nadine's king for definite 2) They're not gonna admit that out loud. It obviously makes them look awfully incompetent, they're just making the bet that they'll look a lot more awfully incompetent if they keep Truss in charge. And I suspect they're right, there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
I love how this thread is currently half arguing about means-testing and half spreadsheet chat. For MY reporting, I have Access databases that crunch all the different tables and variables together, then spits the results out as a single, cleaned data table for reporting. This output file goes to an Excel file as a linked table which then feeds into the summary tables and charts in the report. When you're ready to produce the latest week's report, you simply hit refresh all connections and the Excel report updates itself with the latest week's results. No work necessary, and if you ever get a query about the results, it's really easy to trace it back and to give a rapid response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Well it's Dan 'Nostrodamus' Hodges so either the entire government has already been killed in some comedy methane leak or Truss is about to solidify a ten year military Junta
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
please accept my humblest apologies for bringing up m*crosoft e*cel, the second most boring derail topic behind tedious military history minutiae
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Dabir posted:I think this is the problem in your reasoning. You're approaching this like the government's job is to optimise the money numbers in as few operations as possible. It's not. The job of the government is to implement principles. I agree with you completely, other than I don’t think I’m asking for what you’re suggesting. I want the principles you outlined, but in their absence, I thought a modified version of what you ascribed to me would be better than what we currently have: - Everyone gets enough to live on, but if you are quantifiably among the richest in our society according to our relatively simple tax code, you should get less from us. If it’s impossible to operate that in an ethical way (and the thread consensus appears that it is), then I agree we shouldn’t want that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
So what is the shortest length of time a PM's been in the job?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I’m sorry for discussing something the U.K. chancellor said in the U.K. politics thread without committing to writing the chancellor a letter. It is possible, it just doesn't align with the ideology of any government of the last 40 years or any government we're likely to see in (optimistically) the next 10 years / (pessimistically) ever, and it's incredibly vulnerable to attack by the same interests that it would seek to exclude. You've been given a whole range of responses, some detailed and taking your argument in good faith, some more poo poo-posty because we've seen this just-asking-questions act before, and you've chosen to ignore most of them so that you can use something said in exasperation at all of the above as justification for this "I'm sorry for just trying to have a discussion" crap
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
kecske posted:please accept my humblest apologies for bringing up m*crosoft e*cel, the second most boring derail topic behind tedious military history minutiae At least it wasn't bikechat
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
kecske posted:please accept my humblest apologies for bringing up m*crosoft e*cel, the second most boring derail topic behind tedious military history minutiae What if you used excel to keep track of all these minutiae?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:I agree with you completely, other than I don’t think I’m asking for what you’re suggesting. I want the principles you outlined, but in their absence, I thought a modified version of what you ascribed to me would be better than what we currently have: You added the numbers back in and you don't even see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:49 |
|
|
Rarity posted:So what is the shortest length of time a PM's been in the job? Actually has quiet a bit to go 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 14:01
|
|