|
Malcolm XML posted:Fidesz+Jobbik Jobbik is apparently the most popular party among young people in Hungary. Things really could be worse!
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So how bad was the Green Party interview? I didn't actually see it get mentioned in any of the major papers other than Metro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNjevGdB5g
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I'm surprised you're not as cynical as the rest of us are, I'm sure you've been posting in these threads longer than I have and I'm one cynical motherfucker all thanks to this thread Don't worry, you can't be that bad yet if you read that sincerely 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
I have real difficulty watching cringe comedy without wanting to hide. It can't have been that bad surely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I have real difficulty watching cringe comedy without wanting to hide. It can't have been that bad surely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFn8RIXOBE&t=255s LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Copying this from the January thread: Yes, appeal appeal appeal. I volunteer at a law centre and have had a lot of success with appeals. If you can get the courts rather than the DWP to look at your wife's situation you have a good chance of a more favourable outcome. You'll need to get the DWP to do a mandatory reconsideration first: https://www.gov.uk/pip/appeals Once they've done that then you can appeal. Mandatory reconsiderations rarely change much but they often give you more evidence of the arbitrariness of the decision process. That helps you when you put your appeal together. When I put appeal submissions together I always structure it by working down the list of descriptors and for each category saying: 1. How many points I think the person should be awarded and why 2. How many points they were awarded on the original decision and the reconsideration 3. Explaining why the DWP is wrong, and highlighting the flaws in their reasoning. It's a format that works well in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
I actually only just watched that and I don't think she did too bad? I mean that was a poo poo interview, half tax audit and half belligerent scaremongering like "while the wealthy are all fleeing the country, to put it mildly" and "so your policy is totally to eliminate our defence force and let everyone join Al Qaeda". She spent most of the time trying to answer sincerely and point people to information she didn't know off-hand, instead of getting into the stupid arguments he was fishing with I mean yeah she could have handled it a lot better but I was expecting a stuttering mess when asked basic questions, not getting talked over with factoids like "JSA doesn't cost hundreds of billions now what" and "how much did these two foreign countries raise from their wealth tax, what you don't know??" Was there a serious backlash from people who weren't already hostile to the greens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
She was horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
How so pissflaps
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
She was incapable of giving considered, meaningful, reasoned responses to questions asked of her and was on the back foot for the entire interview.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Like what? Like the question where he wanted a fully costed breakdown of exactly how the citizen's income would be funded, she said it would all be published in March, and then he started picking individual areas of public spending and income and going THIS ISN'T ENOUGH ON ITS OWN IS IT? Or the question where he was wittering on about "you don't believe in the defence of the realm do you??" and asking how big the Green army would be and accusing her of wanting to banish all arms from the country, never buy any, and turn all arms manufacturers into windmill producers? She responded to those fairly well considering he kept interrupting with more stupid comments, she just didn't manage to get a coherent narrative out of it. You kinda had to piece it together from what you could hear inbetween Neill's interruptions. The difference is she actually tried talking about policy and general principles instead of giving the kind of practiced non-answer you'd get if someone like Cameron or Osborne were ever interrogated over their policies or budgets in tedious detail like that (i.e. never)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
I think we'll have to agree to disagree that she responded well when challenged on the costings of one of her party's flagship policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
So it's a bad thing to say "it will be funded through changes in welfare and taxation, the fully costed final details of this will be published in the budget document in March" in response to someone belligerently demanding exact numbers right now and being stupid about it? I mean yeah it would be nice to have a more concrete outline but he was being almost petulant about it. And this is actually a completely normal response you'd hear from any politician asked for concrete numbers before they've been published? Good thing we have consistent standards when some minority party gets a bit of media traction
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
She came off pretty poor in comparison to a similarly inept attempted hazing when the beeb tried it on varoufakis. He held up pretty well (but of course has much more experience with ridiculously biased "interviewers") On another note, it's fun to see people attacking their policy on e: I mean it's fighting on their turf to even discuss costing it out really. Rarely are other policies discussed in terms of their cost in explicit "literally work it out before me, every pound accounted for". The better response is surely to ask why basic income isn't worth paying for: paying domestic labour, volunteers, the impoverished, upward pressure on wages and working conditions, &c &c nuzak fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Or the question where he was wittering on about "you don't believe in the defence of the realm do you??" and asking how big the Green army would be and accusing her of wanting to banish all arms from the country, never buy any, and turn all arms manufacturers into windmill producers? We're relying on Argyle fans to defend our shores? Christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
I voted for greens in EU elections but frankly regret it after a rewatch of that disaster. The interviewer was being a complete bellend. Quite rude and obnoxious. He wouldn't try that poo poo to the PM. Very aggressive. However she couldn't answer one question straight. No figures, no flesh to the skeleton. She didn't even seem to know her own manifesto! If you're going on a major TV broadcast you should know your poo poo backwards. Maybe it's her support staff to blame, but gently caress me what did she expect? He had a good point that they could be part of government soon in a coalition. Also her accent alone is enough to make no one vote for her. Average UK voter is not going to vote for an Australian, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
nuzak posted:upward pressure on wages and working conditions These are bad things though, don't forget we're supposed to be competing with China and India.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Mincome would only serve to mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism without actually addressing the causes of what makes it a necessity - the capitalist classes being unwilling and/or unable to pay the worker a fair wage due to pressures of the market, and greed and spitefulness. A more sensible solution might be the permanent liquidation of the bourgeoisie as a class and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
im just spitballing here
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:A more sensible solution might be the permanent liquidation of the bourgeoisie as a class and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat. Or liquidisation of the bourgeoisie as an entity by the means of a giant blender.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I'm ostensibly a green supporter and I didnt even know Lucas wasnt their leader anymore and now i find out its some australian. I'll still vote for them because they're literally the only slim chance england has of becoming a democracy but its still basically pissing into the wind. At least I'm not a Labour voter, that'd be really embarassing. And as we know nobody really votes tory, their share of seats is determined by the aggregate ill-will of man towards man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Just seen a friend of mine share UKIP's fb on her page. She's Hungarian and studying art history for free thanks to the SNP. I was sure she couldn't be serious, so I touched the poop, and got "their policies have merit" in response. Prepping Big List Of Why UKIP Policies Suck rear end, any contributions are welcome as I'll probably end up forgetting a few. Did she also come to the UK in order to be free of the UK or is that still a Coohoolin original?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Mincome would only serve to mitigate the worst excesses of capitalism without actually addressing the causes of what makes it a necessity - the capitalist classes being unwilling and/or unable to pay the worker a fair wage due to pressures of the market, and greed and spitefulness. This 20th century Marxist rhetoric is starting to get real fuckin tiresome. Please explain to me how a plan to end domestic poverty and wage slavery by breaking the dichotomy of work or die, especially one funded at least in part by heavy levies on capital's profits, is "only mitigating the worst excesses of capitalism".
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I'm ostensibly a green supporter and I didnt even know Lucas wasnt their leader anymore and now i find out its some australian. I'll still vote for them because they're literally the only slim chance england has of becoming a democracy but its still basically pissing into the wind. At least I'm not a Labour voter, that'd be really embarassing. And as we know nobody really votes tory, their share of seats is determined by the aggregate ill-will of man towards man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:This 20th century Marxist rhetoric is starting to get real fuckin tiresome. the clue is in the name; it's the bare minimum. A bone thrown to the poor, to mask the embarrassing reality of what capitalism does to society. The vast quantity of wealth which is created by the working classes is still going to be unjustifiably appropriated by the bourg, who shoud be hanged from lampposts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:This 20th century Marxist rhetoric is starting to get real fuckin tiresome. e: also also seriousposting in ukmt is extremely lame and poo poo communism bitch fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:The vast quantity of wealth which is created by the working classes is still going to be unjustifiably appropriated by the bourg, who shoud be hanged from lampposts. If you hang the bourgeoisie then who will you rent your hovel from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:This 20th century Marxist rhetoric is starting to get real fuckin tiresome. Well giving everyone X pounds basically lifts the baseline of what everyone can afford. With the way capitalism currently works, that will be adjusted for with higher prices (the demand side is willing to spend more because they have more) and/or lower wages. We run on a system of 'what the market can bear', and with a guaranteed income consumers and labour providers can bear a lot more weight As it is society is basically about people competing with each other instead of working together - not just colluding to gain a competitive advantage for a subgroup at the expense of others. In that kind of environment a universal leveller will be exploited and eroded into meaninglessness - it would need to be protected with other measures (like inflation linking and pay regulation) which go against the capitalist free market ethos And even then you're not really attacking wage slavery unless you make work effectively a choice instead of a necessity, which means a fairly large citizen's income and a complete rebalancing of the economy. The private sector is not about altruism and letting people work less and enjoy the benefit of things like increased efficiency and automation, those things translate to More Money For Us and gently caress You. If they can't work people to the max they'll hold the country hostage until they're able to exploit people and make their big profits. At some point the state will have to become a bigger employer, because the capitalist incentives are all wrong. They own a significant chunk of the economy and that will be an issue when they can't get their way anymore Oberleutnant posted:
Wrong it's good
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Did she also come to the UK in order to be free of the UK or is that still a Coohoolin original? I don't understand the question. Anyway it turns out it was a frape.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:This 20th century Marxist rhetoric is starting to get real fuckin tiresome. Agreed, we should all update our lexicon. "Multitude" instead of "Proletariat" and all that. We'll get there eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I don't understand the question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:I tactically voted last time (electoral reform) and look where that got us. gently caress it, im now just 'nearest fit of worldview' and that is green. Thats the spirit of democracy right? I voted green in the last general election and got a green MP, I was infinitely smug towards my mates in Brighton at the time who drank the kool aid and voted for Clegg. "So I just helped the tories win?" Haha welcome to democracy scrubs. Tactical voting is a load of shite and would only make sense if we didn't have 3 right wing neoliberal parties. What you want Balls in charge of the economy? Its just a tacit admission that your vote only matters if you vote for the winner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Her interview wasn't as bad as many would like to make it out to be (You'd think she wasn't able to string two words together from the way some people act), and thingy was being way too aggressive, but she absolutely needs to be able to handle just that sort of thing if she wants the Greens to make progress. Not sure why she's supposed to be able to account for every single penny of the Green's budget proposals and plans in a 15 minute Sunday morning interview, but she needed to have a way to address that or deflect it effectively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:the clue is in the name; it's the bare minimum. A bone thrown to the poor, to mask the embarrassing reality of what capitalism does to society. That's not a reason not to have it. Would you have been against the minimum wage because "it's just the minimum though lol" and didn't go far enough to reach the desired effect of full communism? Because I rather detest these "all or nothing" political outlooks. I realise you're not seriousposting but I'm going to seriouspost your sillypost, what are you gonna do about it (ignore me probably, fair enough I think)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Well giving everyone X pounds basically lifts the baseline of what everyone can afford. With the way capitalism currently works, that will be adjusted for with higher prices (the demand side is willing to spend more because they have more) and/or lower wages. We run on a system of 'what the market can bear', and with a guaranteed income consumers and labour providers can bear a lot more weight Not necessarily. Prices do not rise equally-proportionally (as related to a percentage of people affected blah blah blah) to minimum wage increases, so I see no particular reason that an actual minimum income would necessarily do that. Some, sure, but it wouldn't even come close to wiping out the gains until/unless we ran right up to the limits of supply. We are not at the limits of supply on most necessities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I'm ostensibly a green supporter and I didnt even know Lucas wasnt their leader anymore and now i find out its some australian. I'll still vote for them because they're literally the only slim chance england has of becoming a democracy but its still basically pissing into the wind. At least I'm not a Labour voter, that'd be really embarassing. And as we know nobody really votes tory, their share of seats is determined by the aggregate ill-will of man towards man. I never really gave it much thought during the interview since it was going so badly, but lol why did they make an Australian the leader of their party? Thats going to tank them even more than if all the TV appearances are as bad as this one. As for her not being able to give a fully costed break down of mincome, she didn't need to. What she did need to do was give a few places where the majority of the money would come from. Instead she got hung up on JSA and that means testing costs tons of money despite the fact it was pointed out to her that JSA is gently caress all in the scheme of things given how much money mincome would need.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Agreed, we should all update our lexicon. "Multitude" instead of "Proletariat" and all that. We'll get there eventually. I was referring more to the at best half ironic suggestion of firing squads as a viable solution to our economic problems, so maybe I should have said Bolshevik rhetoric (I think my brain was aiming for "Marxist-Leninist", it was 2am or something I don't know) Which is more a problem with Sebzilla's post really, but that's also how I initially interpreted Oberleutnant's mention of liquidation even though he never explicitly mentioned killing anyone, which means I've seen the same "joke" too many times and it's starting to warp my brain. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Jose posted:I never really gave it much thought during the interview since it was going so badly, but lol why did they make an Australian the leader of their party? Thats going to tank them even more than if all the TV appearances are as bad as this one. Well it is in the spirit of the Greens to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. Or you can put on your tinfoil hat because MI5 are probably all over them like they are with all environmental and social justice groups. It is really cringeworthy though because, yes, it does more or less wreck any opportunity they had to make a good appearance at the debates. I'm not even talking as in like an appearance that makes them look good, because I couldn't give a poo poo, but I was hopeful for them to provide an alternative narrative and just batter the hell out of the Big 3 with it. (Especially Labour since they should have been battering the coalition with a progressive narrative for 5 years now) Instead they are really going to open themselves up for constant, "Well as someone who has lived in this country their whole life *faaaaaaart*"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I was referring more to the at best half ironic suggestion of firing squads as a viable solution to our economic problems, so maybe I should have said Bolshevik rhetoric (I think my brain was aiming for "Marxist-Leninist", it was 2am or something I don't know) I think irreverent suggestions based on 20th century communism are still amusing. Its just a response to the actual 21st century class warfare bullshit that is being spouted nearly constantly either implicitly or explicitly by the media and government. Its also somewhat empowering (or perhaps the illusion of empowering) to imagine that the same historical forces that brought down other unequal systems lie in wait for our government. If you feel like you can't affect the course of government then it becomes darkly amusing the idea that they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction even if that outcome is also bad. Would I enjoy it if a literal Leninist coup purged the government? Probably not if I was there. Do I find the imaginary image of the cabinet rounded up by communist militia while at one of their fancy banquets amusing? Yes. E: poo poo, double post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
In the scheme of things not many people probably saw that interview, if she kicks arse in the debate it would be good. It annoys me that that goofy debate might have so much impact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 08:53
|
|