|
Yeah well you can prove anything with facts.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Zephro posted:No-one doubts their productivity is terrible, though. And long working hours are a symptom of terrible productivity almost by definition. Statistically speaking, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:30
|
|
tooterfish posted:No, it's much more complicated than that. Workers in the US work long hours (47 per week on average), and yet their productivity per hour is one of the highest in the world. Although the US is reasonably exceptional in that regard.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Although the US is reasonably exceptional in that regard. It's mostly a result of sensible governance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
I thought it was because America is a dystopian nightmare where WORK OR/AND DIE is seen as a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Fluo posted:Social Democrats were Social liberals, the Liberal Party were Classical liberals. One loved Adam Smith, the other didn't. As far as I can tell though, it's the other way around. The Liberal Party had still accepted the post-war economic consensus, whereas the SDP recognised that Thatcher was destroying that consensus and didn't have a problem with neoliberalism. e: SNAKES N CAKES posted:It's mostly a result of sensible governance. Pretty much. The US should be lucky that the GOP isn't in the White House right now, because if they were, the US would be crushed under the weight of austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Venomous posted:As far as I can tell though, it's the other way around. The Liberal Party had still accepted the post-war economic consensus, whereas the SDP recognised that Thatcher was destroying that consensus and didn't have a problem with neoliberalism. That was mainly from the defectors of Labour after the 1979 defeat. Also both Liberal parties didn't have a problem with neoliberalism. It's what pieces from neoliberalism they picked. And again SDP were Social Liberal, Liberal Party were Classical Liberal. But again it really depends on the actual date we're talking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
As Tim Farron has literally just said in Parliament, the SDP leader before the merger, David Owen, argued against the motion. Knowing Owen later had the biggest strop ever over the merger, it's clear that a lot of the SDP leadership saw the Alliance not as a political alliance, but as a tactical one. Honestly, watch the Spitting Image parodies of Owen and Steel, with Owen as the closet Thatcherite dominator and Steel as a woolly-politicked tiny voice. Incidentally, the end of Farron's speech, telling Kennedy's son that he should be proud of his father, made me tear up. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I thought it was because America is a dystopian nightmare where WORK OR/AND DIE is seen as a good thing. One of their national mottos. "Give me productivity or give me your death"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
UKIP's biggest doner takes jobs away from the UK EMPLOYEES at one of Bristol's biggest insurance firms have been told their services might be outsourced to South Africa. Some 150 members of staff at Go Skippy Insurance, founded by Thornbury businessman Arron Banks, have been sent home while a "consultation" gets underway. Staff were left shocked after a representative told employees on Monday to pack up their belongings and leave the offices in Cribbs Causeway. He read out a letter saying they were starting a trial to move services to Africa. Only a handful of people are still going to work. Mr Banks made the headlines in October last year when the former Conservative donor gave £1 million to UKIP. He had been planning to give the anti-EU party £100,000, but decided to increase that ten-fold after William Hague dismissed him as "someone we haven't heard of". A spokesman for Go Skippy – which offers van, bike, and car insurance – said it was undergoing a "period of consultation" with staff, but declined to comment on the outsourcing of work to South Africa. A letter sent out by the company have been seen by the Bristol Post. It said: "The most robust and prudent way for the company to test this new way of working is to divert all live functions in its entirety to South Africa for the period of this trial. "This will ultimately establish if this proposal can succeed against rigorous and demanding service level agreements that will be scrutinised over the coming weeks." The letter goes on to say it will "significantly reduce" the workforce in the UK if the trial is successful, and that it was taking this measure after the poor results of the insurance business in 2014. It also states that during the trial period, departments in Bristol affected by the trial will be closed down. One employee, who asked not to be named, has worked in the car insurance call centre since the company started in 2013. She said: "I've been there from the start. When we first started, there were only about 60 of us. "We were told on Monday that all of our work was going out to South Africa. They said we were to go on garden leave for 45 days and they were trialling out the idea. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/150-staff-Bristol-insurance-company-Skippy-told/story-26621857-detail/story.html 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
^^ Edit: That is the strangest way of trialling outsourcing that I can think of. ------ Andy Coulson is acquitted of perjury. Some interesting points within the article: quote:Explaining his ruling, Lord Burns told the jury that perjury was the giving of false evidence under oath which is relevant to the issues in that trial. So far, so sensible, but then Tommy Sheridan weighs in with: quote:Reacting to Mr Coulson's acquittal, Mr Sheridan accused the Crown Office of "corruption", presiding over "a shambles" and called for someone's "head to roll".
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Classic ukip
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, the Greeks already did a good job killing their own economy. Like a quarter of their GDP goes to pensions and they've always been an outlier even before they joined the EU. Can't wait for the lazy fucks to implode. Racial stereotypes aside, this doesn't contradict what I said. Their economy was weaker than northwest Europe before they joined the Euro, and being in the Euro has absolutely destroyed it because it prevents the most effective policy responses to the recession: currency devaluation, cutting interest rates, and fiscal stimulus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Fluo posted:And again SDP were Social Liberal, Liberal Party were Classical Liberal. I believe we're defining these terms differently then. The term 'social liberal', to me, stems from the Liberal Welfare Reforms under Asquith and Lloyd-George, which attempted to create a small mode of social insurance as protection from the Poor Law. It's the school of thought from which Keynesianism and the Beveridge Report eventually emerged. At the time of the Alliance, the Liberals under David Steel were social liberal in the sense that they would have preserved the gains of the post-war welfare state. Not really anything to do with Thatcherite neoliberalism. The term 'classical liberal', as I see it, refers to the Liberal Party as it emerged under Gladstone, which was committed to unregulated capitalism, free trade and economic growth. That kind of liberalism was the basis of the SDP, which split from a profoundly socialist Labour Party under Foot. They weren't interested in the post-war consensus because they knew Thatcher was destroying it, thus they believed that their electoral success depended on adapting classical liberal economic policies to their platform as Thatcher did before them. This branch of liberals would eventually release the Orange Book, which as we all know by now was central to the Lib Dems under Clegg (when they weren't campaigning on a social liberal platform against their actual beliefs). Venomous fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on the term Social Liberal, that's Classical Liberalism you've described pretty accurately. Both see a nation of individuals bound together by a form of social contract, where the role of the State is to ensure a level playing field for all in the economic sphere and protect personal liberty in the social one. The major difference in view points would be that Social Liberals recognise the inequality of opportunity that things in society such as massive wealth disparity, the ability to accumulate capital for inheritance or priviliged class/ethnic groups possess and believe part of the role of government should be to minimise these. Thus you get 'capitalism with a conscience' which is probably somewhere close to the Blairite position. Classical Liberals are fixated on less government intervention and equality of opportunity enforced through the letter of the law and equal rights for all type mechanisms. Put another way both sides seek to safeguard and promote individual rights but Classical Liberals are fixated on Negative rights (protection from being told what to do) while Social Liberals are fixated on Positive Rights (the minimum standards of life that people should be entitled to). Adam Smith vs. John Rawls.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
...I don't think you contradicted me there. I agree. Social liberalism of that sort is where Keynes and Beveridge emerged in the 30s and early 40s. While their proposals were implemented by a socialist government, their building blocks stemmed from the social liberal tradition as you described. I don't think the Liberals under Steel, which was a social liberal party, would've changed things about the social democratic post-war consensus too heavily if they were in power, is what I'm saying. Likewise, if the Lib Dems under Charles Kennedy were in power, they probably wouldn't have governed to the right of Blair's Labour, possibly to their left even. The SDP would have though, as Clegg's Lib Dems worked with the Tories in power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Well after the publication of the Orange Book weren't the Lib Dems more or less set on becoming openly a neoliberal party? Even if Kennedy stayed the ground underneath him in the party was continuing to move to the economic right. More or less it is the same story as any other center-left party, although the Lib Dems may shifted a bit later than Labour and other center-left parties did in the 1980/90s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well after the publication of the Orange Book weren't the Lib Dems more or less set on becoming openly a neoliberal party? Even if Kennedy stayed the ground underneath him in the party was continuing to move to the economic right. This is depressingly fair to say. That said, I would've thought a leader like Kennedy would have a lot more influence on how the party swayed and would've openly resisted any attempts by the rank and file to lurch to the right. If, as was suggested earlier, Kennedy stayed in his position long enough to form the Opposition like Layton's NDP, most of the new Lib Dem MPs would surely share his social liberal tradition (Kennedyites, they might've been called) and the Orange Bookers would've been marginalised. Venomous fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Venomous posted:If, as was suggested earlier, Kennedy stayed in his position long enough to form the Opposition like Layton's NDP, most of the new Lib Dem MPs would surely share his social liberal tradition (Kennedyites, they might've been called) e: Breaking Norn Iron news, someone has deliberately flown an illegal fleg with the bad colours. Unionist politicians are very unhappy, Shinners are more concerned about the upcoming economic devastation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32996247 Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Breaking Norn Iron news, someone has deliberately flown an illegal fleg with the bad colours. Unionist politicians are very unhappy, Shinners are more concerned about the upcoming economic devastation. flegs are very important business
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-runs-labour-leader-5818184 Something lefty this way comes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-runs-labour-leader-5818184 Cool, if nothing else it should make the leadership debates more interesting. Are there actually sufficient unpledged Labour MPs left at this point for him to get his name on the ballot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Assuming each candidate so far only got the minimum number of nominations, yes, but I doubt that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Assuming each candidate so far only got the minimum number of nominations, yes, but I doubt that's the case. Andy Burnham has 50+ and Yvette Cooper has 30+ last time I looked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Are they allowed to reapply their endorsements if new candidates come in? I know gently caress all about the Labour Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Andy Burnham has 50+ and Yvette Cooper has 30+ last time I looked. 35 is the minimum so at a minimum 175 nominations have been used, assuming they're single-use. If Burnham has 50+that leaves the new guy with no more than 37. Seems unlikely. Assuming they're single-use. I too know gently caress-all about the Labour party...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Are they allowed to reapply their endorsements if new candidates come in? I know gently caress all about the Labour Party. I three know gently caress all about the Labour party. This should be allowed, given the nomination period is still running for the next month or so I think. If not, some people should Do The Right Thing and reassign their excess votes to avoid a farcical first come first elected situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
The Guardian has just published a pretty detailed account of Miliband and the final days of his campaign. Apparently the Ed stone has been destroyed and they never planned for a scenario that involved them losing, which is why the response to the exit poll was such a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
I think they might be able to reassign, purely because David Milliband gave his vote to Diane Abbott in the last leadership election because she was one vote short or something like that
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
J33uk posted:The Guardian has just published a pretty detailed account of Miliband and the final days of his campaign. Apparently the Ed stone has been destroyed and they never planned for a scenario that involved them losing, which is why the response to the exit poll was such a mess. quote:In a stream of memos, beginning early in Miliband’s leadership, Tony Blair’s former communications director Alastair Campbell urged Miliband to confront what he described as the Tory lie on the deficit, arguing that it would be fatal if Labour allowed the charge to stick. He explains: “When Miliband was elected leader, he felt uncomfortable defending the Blair-Brown record. He wanted to disassociate himself from the past and talk about the future.” The appointment of the former Times journalist – and close friend of Campbell – Tom Baldwin as media adviser, in December 2010, appeared to signal that Miliband recognised the danger, since Baldwin’s pitch for the job had been centred on the need to confront this very issue. He had proposed a week-long attack on “the great Tory deception” over the deficit, which was to have involved the entire shadow cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Campbell is a complete and utter bastard. But he's our complete and utter bastard, and he knows how to win a loving election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
also lol:quote:(The stone’s demolition, in the event of a Labour loss, had been agreed at the time it was commissioned. After the election, the party drew up two plans for its disposal: one was simply to smash the stone up and throw the rubble onto a scrap heap. The second was to break it up and sell chunks, like the Berlin Wall, to party members as a fundraising effort. The first attempts to destroy the stone had to be postponed when the media tracked its location to a south London warehouse. There are claims it has been destroyed, but even Miliband’s close advisers cannot confirm its fate.) this reads like the disappearance and brutal execution of a political prisoner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
It is hard to have faith in a political party that created a literal tombstone for themselves, much less everything else about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
I'm just catching up now, but, on Kennedy:quote:“At the heart of his political views was a deep commitment to social justice,” the prime minister added. “He passionately believed in Europe as a way of bringing people together, but his most outspoken contribution in recent years was the principled stand he took against the Iraq war. How many corpses will Call Me Dave trample underfoot in his quest for power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Been watching Dan Snow's Lets gently caress about on boats Armada programme ads found something to make you proud to british. When the Armada came sailing in we sent one little clipper in. From the behind. She was called the HMS Disdain. If nothing else makes you proud to be brittainian, use that. The idea of a little scout making a potshot named like that gladdens my heart
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I'm just catching up now, but, on Kennedy: Not sure what's objectionable about saying that Kennedy was known for being pro-Europe, considering that he very much was?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
then you're kind of oblivious. (nothing you said is incorrect)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Oh yeah the political context is obvious. Though eh, bringing out Kennedy's corpse in favour of a cause he (sorta given the difference between him and Cameron on Europe) believed in is practically tasteful by political standards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Makes a change from his son I suppose
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Besides, I'm pretty sure Kennedy was enough of a political animal to be kinda-sorta OK with becoming a retroactive martyr for that particular cause. It's tasteless, but far from the most hideous thing a Tory (or Tory donor) has done to someone's corpse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 23:36
|
|