UKMT March 2021 - Two Flags One Pole - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT March 2021 - Two Flags One Pole

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Ewan posted:

I'm honestly curious to hear what Starmer's response to all of this is going to be.

Set aside political alignment, this budget is pretty much what most progressives would be after (within the limits of what is realistic). Fund a big package of stimulus spending through capital gains, corporation tax, pensions, inheritance tax etc and done in a way designed not to hit small or struggling businesses, and freeze most of the regressive taxes like VAT, duties, etc.

the lrb pointed out the US stimulus, scaled down to UK size, would be �200bn. rishi is promising a much less adequate amount even if you include furlough and terrific ideas like eat out to help out

one option open to starmer is to say it's not a big package and we should be borrowing a lot more rather than raising taxes. another is to say we should be being bolder and going further without going into specifics. but realistically i dont think 10% care what labour's response is

# ¿ Mar 3, 2021 21:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:58

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

MikeCrotch posted:

Also the Lib Dems are loving proven losers, if you can brownnose your way up the Labour ranks you're much more likely to be able to get a safe seat

As for the Tories - frankly I think a lot of them do. Look at Rishi Sunak and tell me you couldn't imagine him in Starmer's shadow cabinet.

I think people do overstate the outright cynicism of the Labour right - while there are pure careerists I think most of them are true believers that New Labour was good and they are defending liberal capitalism from both a regressive left and callous small state Tories. The problem is their analysis is so flawed they haven't actually got an accurate view of the public, themselves, the left, or the Tories, and so are incapable of actually winning a public vote.

I read an interesting article about the lib dems being second in a lot of constituencies and how Labour will need to work together with them to get rid of the tories.

Prospect posted:

Labour now needs a swing of 1997 landslide proportions simply to become the largest party. To gain a majority of one it needs to add 123 MPs, which would mean increasing its parliamentary representation by 60 per cent�something that no major party has ever done in the post-war era. It must deliver these results in a context in which it has only one MP in Scotland, and any fight back there must start from third place, behind both the SNP and the Conservatives. Worse, Labour has to put a lot of energy into defence: 58 of its current seats being vulnerable to a small swing to the Tories. A Labour majority next time, then, may not be impossible but nor is it even remotely likely.
[...]
Back in 1997, by concentrating all fire on the Conservatives Blair and Ashdown quietly created a two-against-one frame for the election which helped Labour prevail in the most unlikely places and the Lib Dems to double their seats, as the Tories were reduced to a rump. Going much further back to 1903, Herbert Gladstone and Ramsay MacDonald quietly agreed that the Liberals and nascent Labour party would not impede each other in various seats, and helped paved the way for one of the greatest ever defeats of the Tories�and the dawn of a great reforming age�in 1906. The secrecy of that arrangement would be neither practical nor desirable today, but progressives of different stripes who are united in despair at the capricious chauvinism of the Johnson government should rekindle the same spirit.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2021 01:25

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

The Perfect Element posted:

Also is it me, or is Labour's position of nobly arguing that in fact nurses should have a whopping 2.1% pay rise just weak as gently caress. Like, as a negotiating tactic, an extra 1.1% starting point is just pathetic.

the greatest labour leader we never had issued this corrective to ppl who thought rishi's budget was at all eating labour's lunch
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/john-mcdonnell-budget-2021-rishi-sunak-stole-words-banker-friends-895544

# ¿ Mar 7, 2021 22:18

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Angrymog posted:

I don't know if it's the same for all trusts, but once you got to the top of your banding, the only way to keep getting pay rises was to look for a higher band job.

where i was we had our first pay rise (1%) in years and it felt mad to get more money without going for promotion. entry level jobs are shite whereas theres less to do as a manager so pay should be flat throughout the grades itpo

# ¿ Mar 8, 2021 01:51

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Convex posted:

Look I only posted it ironically, you didn't have to watch the whole thing

lol

# ¿ Mar 8, 2021 02:00

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Scikar posted:

Vitamin P has asked for "just one example that is systemically better", and then proceeded to dismiss all the suggestions offered (where he has offered any response), so it's left unclear whether or not he supports the GIC in this current form, despite ample opportunity to correct the record.

The P in Vitamin P stands for patriot and as you say they were asking for examples of places that do it better, not for suggestions on how UK GICs could be better. To move this topic forward it would be good to hear from qhat where Canada ranks.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2021 04:29

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Ewan posted:

�37bn is an insane amount of money but worth keeping discussions over figures factual here. Trying to divvie up �37bn (or even �27bn) as if that has been spent on trace is not really right. It is allocated funding covering a two year period. The vast majority is allocated towards testing and only a small amount has actually been spent.

The allocations have been in three stages: initially, �15bn was allocated for 2020-21. The spending review added �7bn to bring it to �22bn, and then then the latest budget committed a further �15bn for 2021-22 bringing the total budget allocated to �37bn covering 2020-2022.

Because the data does not exist for expenditure since end of the year, the caveat is that we have to use the December 2020 expenditure data. But it still gives you an idea of how that �37bn will be allocated.

Of the �15bn initial allocation, only �1.3bn (less than 10%) was allocated to trace (and about �730m of that was for the call handler contracts (where you got your 12,000 figure)). The rest was pretty much all for testing. The further �7bn in the SR was, likewise, predominantly for testing.

And it's worth noting that as of the Dec 2020 data, despite having a �22bn 2020-21 budget at this stage, it had only actually signed contracts for �7bn with the rest to come later (noting it has to do so before end of FY so no idea if on track or not).

I'm not disputing that �37bn is a ridiculous amount of money, nor am I making any comment on how good or not test & trace has or hasn't been. But, if you want to dig in and be critical of how the government is spending money you at least need to be using the right facts and figures. As amusing as it is to claim they are spending �2.19 million per tracing consultant, it's also just plain false and doesn't help have proper debate over where the system has failed.

If you use similar proportions as per 2020-21 budget allocations (so let's say 10-15% of the �36bn ends up going to trace) then that ends up being approx. �1.5-2bn per yr. This gets us firmly into "lots of overpaid consultants and some very pricey public procurements contracts" territory rather than "we are 50 orders of magnitude out here and billions have been secretly funnelled away in some corrupt conspiracy.

My sources here are the National Audit Office report on Test & Trace (Dec 2020) and the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee report (March 2021).

thanks for this, please keep posting

# ¿ Mar 11, 2021 14:30

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

ronya posted:

I stumbled across this blogpost in 2011 and it's stuck in the mind since: https://jwmason.org/slackwire/some-should-do-one-others-other/

Succinct. And also neatly illustrates the difference in organisational philosophy between the Old Left and New Left, noting that the NLF (better known as the Viet Cong) in South Vietnam itself was deeply party-hierarchical and centralized. This anecdote is more indicative of the mythology the New Left would have preferred to draw in the late 1960s, perhaps.

very zen, but mason surely knows that 'pointless debates about tactics' are their own reward and always have been. sure, the barrier to entry is lower now than it was in 2011, and 'debates' is overstating it. but a decent echo chamber provides more validation than canvassing or changing public opinion one lib at a time. plus, if you're like that video guy whatevil posted, you can get more money, fame and even a route to being a full-time tactics debater by being sarcastic for 15 minutes

i was flicking through florence given's women dont owe you pretty and while i found it a terrible read (and was relieved to find it criticised by the black activist who florence said inspired it), there was a useful phrase in there florence cribbed about a comfort zone being a beautiful place but nothing grows there

all of which is to say, keep posting. recently ive been thinking a lot about your reminder that corbyn, too, promised more police

# ¿ Mar 13, 2021 22:09

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Communist Thoughts posted:

Divide and conquer. You just need to get people who would otherwise be on the same side to argue about statues instead.
So far humanity hasn't come up with a counter to divide and conquer.

Me and some gammon can agree that the bankers should cough up their cash or that the british economy should be in the hands of the British people but we can't agree that Churchill wasn't a racist.
Noteably whether Churchill was racist or not doesn't effect either of us materially so we can discuss that in the media as much as we like.

And we can turn all the relevant issues of our decaying state and collapsing environment into symbolic issues that don't threaten anything.

absolutely right - that's what makes 'cathartic' rants about gammons doubly frustrating. but there is hope, says this former editor of Marxism Today:

Prospect posted:

The populist delusion

The right has won the early battles, but the left can still win the war.

Over the last decade, an increasingly confident right wing has presented disillusioned voters with a simple choice: elitist, neoliberal hyper-globalisation or popular, patriotic nationalism. This new fault-line pits economic and social liberalism against social conservatism and the promise of muscular economic intervention. Despite the defeat of Donald Trump in 2020, progressives have yet to find a strategy to combat this potent�if false�divide.

The traditional right-left dividing line�economic liberalism and social conservatism on the right, economic interventionism and social liberalism on the left�forced working-class nationalists to choose between their socially conservative instincts (including hostility to immigration) and their support for state intervention in the economy. In essence, they had to decide which liberalism�social or economic�to reject.

The 2016 Brexit referendum freed such voters from this restraint�and it certainly set back the old liberal order. But despite many jumping to the conclusion that fervent nationalism explained the whole Brexit phenomenon, it was not clear which liberalism was being rejected. Many of the towns that repudiated the EU were voting just as much against the deindustrialisation that took place during the years Britain was in the EU as they were voting to restore a supposedly Edenic 1950s. Back in the conventional world of parliamentary elections, in 2017 Labour�s anti-neoliberal economic programme under Jeremy Corbyn added 3.5m votes to its 2015 general election tally. But by 2019, identity trumped economics�on which the Tories had anyway begun to change their tune under Boris Johnson�and the red wall crumbled.

The British right was not alone in affecting to spurn both liberalisms. From Warsaw via Workington to Wisconsin, working-class voters received promises from right-wing populists that their economic interests would not be sacrificed on the altar of neoliberalism. Poland�s Law and Justice Party adopted an economic and social programme that would win over �left-behind� Poles. Marine Le Pen�s National Front professed to abandon its fascist past and moved the spotlight onto protecting French industry. Johnson committed his party to an interventionist �levelling-up� agenda. And Trump promised industrial protection against overseas competition, as well as the biggest programme of public works since the New Deal. (Of course, he delivered neither.)

[...]

This potent new cocktail of social conservatism and interventionist economic policies divides the right, but threatens to split the left from its traditional base. How should progressives respond?

Debunk the assertions of the right

First, the left must challenge the language and narrative of the right, starting with the assumption that every social liberal is an economic neoliberal as well. Post-liberal �minence grise John Gray repeatedly brands progressives as neoliberal champions of hyper-globalisation, writing in an undifferentiated way about �the liberal political class,� �liberals in all parties� and the �liberal elites� (New Statesman, 14th August 2019), as if every supporter of gay marriage or women�s rights owns a hedge fund and winters in Davos. In reality, of course, there are countless progressives who remain liberal on democratic and social issues but also want greater state intervention to create a more equal economy.

Second, progressives should confront the claim that people�s priorities are no longer economic but primarily cultural. Part of the populist right�s appeal is to �left behind� working-class people nostalgic for a rose-tinted version of the 1950s, before feminism, gay rights, immigration and the EU came along to spoil it all. But these issues only began to gain serious traction in the discussion after New Labour embraced unfettered globalisation, abandoning its traditional base. And they only became weaponised after the 2008 banking crash, and especially the austerity that followed it, had engendered material hardship.

Third, progressives must take on the view that the Tories are now the political voice of the British working class, and that the Republicans have become a post-Trumpist working-class party. True, both Tories and Republicans have consolidated support among sections of the working class (particularly in small towns and the countryside, where the working class is disproportionately old and white). But just as Danny Dorling demonstrated that the crucial votes for Brexit were delivered by Conservative voters in the affluent south, so the New York Times 2020 election exit poll showed that Biden defeated Trump among the 73 per cent of US voters whose family income is below $100,000, while Trump beat Biden by 11 points among the better-off. The growing fixation on the �white working class� should also not obscure the reality that a rapidly expanding slice of the working class is not white at all.

Even putting race to one side, the left has to believe that�in the end�the truth counts. Yes, Trump promised infrastructure spending, but voters noticed that his major actual economic �achievement� was a spectacular tax cut for the rich. Yes, Conservatives now support the minimum wage that they opposed two decades ago, but few court cases have actually been brought to enforce it, as seen recently over the conditions within textile factories supplying retailer Boohoo in Leicester. Progressives need to highlight such ugly realities, and voice and channel the discontent of those they affect.

Instead, the government and conservative press promote a �culture war� agenda designed to split traditional Labour voters and the new social movements. The most audacious attempt to fashion the new agenda was Equality and International Trade Secretary Liz Truss�s speech in December. She hijacked the language of �equality,� and twisted it into a stick to beat anti-racists and feminists. Truss claimed that left-wing teachers at her 1980s Leeds comprehensive were more concerned with racism and sexism than with teaching pupils to read and write. She omitted to mention that, prior to the introduction of comprehensives in the 1960s, just 15 per cent of girls got five good O Levels whereas today the figure (for GCSEs) has risen to 70 per cent.

In responding to the nationalist populist challenge there should be no triangulation. Blue Labour is a dangerous dead end that will only split progressive alliances. At the same time, absolutist positions must be avoided. Too often within contemporary social movements a narrow kind of identity politics is promoted, where solidarity is impossible because only personal experience is said to count. Similarly, there are still Remainers so incensed by the EU referendum result that they insist only a reversal of the decision will suffice. No element�liberal, progressive, socialist�can afford these indulgences. In opposing the illiberal, nationalist right the crucial lesson from the 1930s is crystal clear: unite against the main enemy.

The building blocks of a progressive coalition

If the myths of the nationalist right can be dispelled, then a new progressive coalition of forces can be forged which doesn�t pit �somewhere� against �anywhere,� but rather seeks to weave together alliances that address the needs of 21st-century society. What needs to be done to bring this opportunity about?

First, we need a confident argument for a new economics. As the failings of neo-liberalism have become starker, the centre of gravity in the economic debate has moved left, with even business leaders conceding things need to change. The pandemic reinforces that shift, demonstrating the vital role of government and public institutions in protecting people. Now the IMF, along with the OECD, has reversed four decades of Washington consensus and given its seal of approval to public investment strategies. Keynesianism and active government are back.

Second, gross inequalities need to be tackled, and the public realm restored. The hardest hit by inequality are those living in large, multi-generational households, working in low-paid, manual jobs, in communities with a depleted public realm and limited social capital. Chancellor Rishi Sunak�s approach is not going to fix this. His autumn statement combined emergency pandemic spending and public investment plans with a fresh squeeze on day-to-day public service spending in the years ahead�one that he doubled down on in his March budget. The offer to NHS staff of a measly 1 per cent pay rise has provoked rage, but the decision flows out of the continuation of austerity arithmetic across most social services: indeed, non-NHS public service workers are set for an outright pay freeze. Progressives can put this right in a way Sunak cannot, because they are not in hock to the interests of wealth. This gives them more options for raising revenue to put the public services back on a proper footing, raise the safety net and pay for a massive job support programme. Late last year, the Office of Tax Simplification published a report that suggested wealth tax measures could raise up to �14bn; in December, the Wealth Tax Commission demonstrated how a one-off wealth tax on millionaire households could raise up to �260bn.

Third, liberals, progressives and socialists can and should defend the social gains of the last 50 years, beginning with the social reforms passed or enabled by the Wilson governments (liberalising censorship and divorce laws, decriminalising abortion and homosexuality, expanding comprehensive education and introducing the Equal Pay and Race Relations Acts). In defending and expanding these gains, progressives are going with the grain of public opinion. Despite claims of an across-the-spectrum rise in social conservatism on �family� issues, the last decades have seen an extraordinary liberalisation in attitudes towards gay people, interracial marriage and extramarital sex. Hostility to gay sex has fallen by 50 percentage points since the British Social Attitudes survey was instituted in 1983. Rates of cohabitation are roughly equivalent between the liberal cities and the supposedly conservative towns (Birmingham�s cohabitation rate is lower than that of Sandwell, Walsall or Dudley). The most recent BSA survey indicates that attitudes to tax, spending and welfare are also moving significantly leftwards: only 20 per cent of the public thinks that current wealth disparities are fair, while the number advocating higher taxation and spending rose from 31 per cent in 2010 to 53 per cent in 2019. Despite the 2019 election result�and current polls�long-term trends in public opinion seem to be moving leftwards on social and economic issues at the same time.

The issues of race and immigration clearly influenced and probably settled the Brexit result. Cultural conservatives have been quick to denigrate the Black Lives Matter movement while the tabloid press stokes fears of foreign invasion by small numbers of refugees. Yet, the BSA survey indicates that more people now think that immigration benefits the economy and enriches the culture than think the opposite. In December, a mixed-race partnership won the public vote on Strictly Come Dancing and Lewis Hamilton, a strong Black Lives Matter advocate, was voted BBC Sports Personality of the Year. Black footballer Marcus Rashford won huge support for his campaign for the government to provide free meals to poor children during school holidays, a model of a truly progressive campaign that draws on feelings of social solidarity across the whole community. This is volatile terrain, but one where we cannot be hesitant or defensive. Progressives should not apologise for multiculturalism, but rather set out a vision for the multi-ethnic country that we have already become.

Fourth, there is the need to address the climate emergency. When the pandemic struck, it seemed it might drop off the agenda. The reverse has happened. In the latter half of 2020 the EU, China, Japan and South Korea all made substantial climate commitments, and of course the US has jettisoned a denialist administration for one that is positively keen to engage. Johnson�s 10-point Green revolution programme might be inadequate, but it at least indicates that climate change deniers are a marginal force within government. Only progressives can provide the vast nationwide programme of state investment required to decarbonise the country�s building and housing stock, warm homes and lower fuel bills. The progressive forces in British politics�Labour and the SNP; Greens and Liberal Democrats�should set out their vision now, and call for a decade-long �30bn refurbishment programme.

Fifth, democratic decentralisation. While �taking back control� has been the leitmotif of the Tory story in the Brexit era, the reality is that�like the Thatcher government before them�today�s Conservatives are only interested in restoring control to a centralised British state. The progressive counterargument should involve revenue expenditure being returned to local authorities so that the public realm�libraries, parks, shopping and leisure centres�can be renovated. At the same time, the distribution of �levelling up� funds should be decided at the local or city-region level, not within Whitehall, which has revealed itself to be more interested in channelling funding on the basis of party advantage rather than on the basis of need. It also means allowing Scots to determine their own future, and not pretending London can �just say no� to another referendum if Scotland�s people vote for parties that want one.

Finally, a new internationalism. At the outset of the pandemic, the hard right heralded the end of globalisation and the return of the strong nation state. Yet the pandemic has in fact illustrated the interdependent reality of the 21st-century world, above all in the extensive scientific collaboration over the research, development and production of vaccines. The era of neoliberal hyper-globalisation is being replaced not by a jigsaw of sovereign nation states, but by a multi-polar world of regional trading blocs, as evidenced in November when 15 Asian states signed a mammoth trade deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

Where does this leave the UK? With their anti-Chinese rhetoric, Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith and the right seek a pivotal role for Britain as America�s chief ally in the South China Sea and Indo-Pacific, an East of Suez imperial delusion that Harold Macmillan killed off 60 years ago. Others, like the newly ennobled Daniel Hannan, talk glibly of an Anglosphere stretching from Canada to New Zealand, a concept with no geographical or commercial logic. The breathtaking cynicism with which Johnson and his new Europe Minister David Frost disown the very Northern Ireland Protocol that they themselves so recently negotiated, as they whip up anti-EU sentiment in the press, is fast earning London a reputation for bad faith that could cost the country dearly in the years ahead.

Instead of �putting out more flags,� progressives need to promote pragmatic real-world diplomacy. In the 21st century no country, whatever its history, can ever walk alone. Any campaign to rejoin the EU now is a complete non-starter. However, for reasons of economics, geography, history, culture and security, a close working partnership between the UK and the Continent is in the interests of both parties. The EU remains by far the UK�s major trading partner; Britons make over 65m visits to Europe in a normal year. Hence, over the coming years, the strategic option is for the UK to seek a partnership that goes way beyond the lightweight deal finalised on Christmas Eve.

Constructing a majority

The UK faces a choice. Do we want to remain a fiercely unequal, deeply divided country, glowering across a toxic political fault-line? Or do we want to renew and build on the unity of national purpose shown in the early Covid months? A progressive coalition can build an uplifting programme that addresses the big issues of our age. But as Stuart Hall warned after Labour�s 1987 election defeat: �Politics does not reflect majorities, it constructs them.� The Conservatives suspect their coalition is unstable and that after four decades of neoliberalism the ground is moving against them. Hence their drive for a new populist model. In response, progressives need to avoid the traps set by our opponents, expose their inadequacies and weaknesses, and unite around a new social settlement for the future. Are we up to the task?

MORE STORIES BY JON BLOOMFIELD
David Edgar
David Edgar is a playwright and commentator. His recent work includes an autobiographical solo show, �Trying it On�. Since 2009, he has written extensively about the new fault-line in world politics. In the 1980s both authors were on the editorial board of Marxism Today

# ¿ Mar 15, 2021 16:24

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Mebh posted:

Today I made pizza with my new pizza oven that I bought with my bonus. Yay for a non poo poo company that just split all their profits between the staff.

I entirely hosed up the first one as it was too thin and set fire to literally everything in a panic, including my hair. It was still delicious though.

By the end (number 4) though I got pretty decent i think!

Tomorrow is round two with a different dough that hopefully will be a bit easier to move.

I then took free pizza to my neighbours. Who were very happy.

i thougth you were saying the pizza oven company was non poo poo. id still like to know which it was

# ¿ Mar 17, 2021 02:54

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

learnincurve posted:

Mini is doing public services next btw, it�s worth 90 uni points to basically do Duke of Edinburgh for 2 years, with an option of two Derby uni years after. After that she can decide what she wants to do in real university - we are in the funding if you live at home catchment area for Sheffield, Hallam and Derby, although it�s Derby offering her the most cool stuff.

seems a waste of 4-6 a levels + uni points to go to derby. and as a live at home student will she get the socialisation you crave?

# ¿ Mar 19, 2021 05:59

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Bobby Deluxe posted:

Also spotify is awful and trashfuture did an episode about how little they pay artists. Their rating algorithm also actively works against smaller artists getting a fair share of the royalties pool in a way that seems really weird, until you consider that it's another really sinister 'innovation as a way of circumventing worker rights' thing.

this reminded me that I came across your username in the self-publishing thread and i wanted to thank you for the advice there. are you still writing?

# ¿ Mar 19, 2021 06:38

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

learnincurve posted:

Hello I�m poor, on benefits and need the extra loan and bursary money so she can go to university and also eat food.

hi! i hear you. theres still plenty of time so definitely worth looking online for bursaries at better unis, including overseas ones. there are also no end of legacies that people leave for poor gifted folk to go to uni.

what's the latest with tightgate? is she going back to school on monday?

e. beeffeeter whats making you anxious about five weeks' time?

# ¿ Mar 20, 2021 01:26

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Venomous posted:

so I've come to the conclusion in the past week that I probably have ADHD and it explains a lot of the poo poo that I've been experiencing throughout my adult life so far, and I think someone upthread posted a list of ADHD symptoms, so thanks for that b/c it's really fuckin useful at clarifying these things

that said, I really really really loving wish I'd known ten years ago b/c I've been going through most of my 20s with no clue as to why my brain is so loving shite

id see a doctor rather than going off a list of symptoms you read online. remember that chris rock bit about late night tv ads for pills

fake edit: this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIwar_oRIAcone

# ¿ Mar 20, 2021 01:40

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Beefeater1980 posted:

Never mind, coming to terms with some stuff and I wasn�t in the best (soberest) frame of mind when I wrote that. Thank you for asking.

Sorry for your troubles. Love your posts in the career thread.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2021 03:40

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

peanut- posted:

Well done everyone we did it

https://twitter.com/PoliDigitalUK/status/1372944339781832706?s=20

and there's more good news! we're the happiest country of decent size in the world! up yours, delors! eat poo poo, fritz!

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Mar 20, 2021 05:40

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Zero Gravitas posted:

[...]
One thing I will at least point to with the corporation tax vote is that keirs absolutely right. The coronavirus financial package has been stonking but the GFC showed pretty hard what happens when you cut out the demand from surplus cash on hand it becomes an incredibly difficult situation to come back from since everyone is sitting on everyone else's hands.

And by numbers that will affect a lot of self employed people who don't need an excuse not to vote Labour as they feel abandoned by them already.

Its not great by any means but it is practical ™

Maybe we could try and look at things like labour got bent over a knee and spanked by the opposition to an 80 seat majority because newsflash that's what happened and the wilderness isn't just calling but sat outside our house in a car.

for balance i feel starmer has got some things right. for example, he proposed the circuit breaker idea last year, boris rubbished it, then boris had to implement it a week later anyway

i also agreed with labour's opposition to raising taxes (even corporation tax) this year because raising taxes to pay for the pandemic feeds into the credit card analogy

i agree that saying starmer is worse than boris or labour are worse than tories is being hyperbolic. the test for me is, if you flipped the current cabinet and shadow cabinet, would the uk be better off in all the ways that matter?

starmer's issue is he is the theresa may of labour without the power. he has no charisma and no recognisable principles beyond backing law and order (that principle appeals to lots of people though and is harder to fake than most). the politicians who have won GEs since 1979 have been the more charismatic candidate, with the possible exception of john major (im too young to remember kinnock but i understand the guy was (is?) bald welsh ginger and fell into the sea on live tv at one point).

the good news for people who think a labour PM would be better is that populism's popularity is difficult to sustain in power and the scandals are piling up

# ¿ Mar 29, 2021 17:32

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

1965917 posted:

Boris's entire life is one scandal after another, I doubt one more is going to sink him.

And people really are stupid enough to vote for these bastards a fourth time.

I agree boris's colourful personal life TM is all part of his charm. by scandals i should have specified its the them vs. us stuff like cummings and the corruption (e.g. dodgy contracts, the housing minister) of the rest of the cabinet i had in mind

then of course very boring things (like the middle class turning against the tories cause a) they cant sell their homes or b) make 40k a year from being a small landlord any more) can be costly

boris got a huge majority, got brexit done then got covid and got REALLY popular. six weeks later hes facing calls to stand down over cummings. assuming no further scandals, by the next GE the govt wont be paying people not to work, and instead the effects of brexit and pandemic will be felt. it feels like peaking too early to me

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Mar 29, 2021 18:52

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Ms Adequate posted:

If the Tories didn't already have a stonking majority that's still safe for another 3 1/2 years (plus change) then there would be a very good impetus for Boris to call an election sometime later this year to shore himself up, especially as Labour are cratering thanks to Starmer's bold and visionary leadership, and it could be sold as "We must ask you, The People, on the direction the country takes now that we've Brexited and in the post-pandemic world", but as it stands there's little reason to bother, unless he's about to get knifed from inside the party and it would be his play to stay in Number 10 I suppose.

I mean, I guess if I had a button that could replace the current Cabinet with the Shad Cab I would press it, but I wouldn't expect it to achieve very much, at best I would anticipate the decline would be slowed or temporarily halted. Maybe Thomas-Symonds would be less poo poo than Patel as Home Sec, but he got a PPE from Oxford so I would expect that to be a question of degree rather than substance, and anyway if the most inspirational thing you can manage is "Not as evil as Thatcher's current host" that doesn't speak volumes to your inspirational qualities as a frontbench or political party.

The thing about Starmer is that after we got rocked on our heels in 2019 the UK left certainly had people in it who either thought "Maybe we need to try a different tack" or "As a matter of pragmatism we need to go slower" and were willing to at least give Starmer a chance. In retrospect it was melty of me but my own attitude was "Okay, I support a lot of what the Corbyn platform wants, but I accept that the very fact of this defeat means it's probably a non-starter for awhile, just because people don't like voting for losers. And I expect Starmer to be a centrist melt but obviously the left of the party still has a lot of energy and resources, especially in terms of knocking on doors, so I expect he will keep a few Corbynite policies to try and keep them on his side and unite the party." I even expected some of those would be jettisoned if/when he got the keys to Downing Street, but I figured even if we get just, say, two Corbyn planks, it'd by any objective measure be better than zero of them under the Tories, so, fine, the party has spoken, let's see what Starmer can do.

What I did not expect was that he would be so thoroughly cowardly that he makes Clintonite focus group chasing to be bold and decisive. What few policy positions he's laid out have been to the right of the tories, although I see Breath Ray's point that the corporation tax question might also have a left-wing reason to oppose it. He's demanded things either after the tories have already come out and themselves called for them, or has demanded kids be back in school (Which is a complex issue and I know there are good reasons to have wanted it ASAP, but it was not what I would characterize as the sole issue in the country warranting Starmer actually take a stance on), but where are his big tentpole policies? I get that even by my own above statement we're a few years out from the next election so I don't expect a detailed manifesto but any serious opposition party should have an outline for what they'd be putting in said manifesto if a snap election was called - we didn't know everything that would go into the 2017 or 2019 Labour manifestos but Corbyn said enough that we had a good notion of what it would look like and what kinds of major policies we could expect to feature. Quite aside from whether the ideas are any good or not, at a fundamental level it's simply terrible politics that even a bunch of nerds like ITT can't really tell you what a Starmer premiership would want to do. Of course we project our own biases onto him, and extrapolate from what little he has actually set out a stance on, when that's all we have to go on; what else can we base our expectations on? At least if he had a few ideas of his own someone like ZG coming into the thread would be able to point to those and say "Look he wants to do X, Y, and Z, why do you hate him?" rather than fumbling in the dark until hitting on the critical red-button issue of... raising corporation tax by 6%.

i agree with all this, just wanted to voice some optimism. starmer needs to back some of the apolitical but popular stuff like broadband for all and nationalisation itpo

# ¿ Mar 29, 2021 20:24

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Tesseraction posted:

Back in 2014 or so but at the Green Party conference she hosted a panel on marginalised women (which had no trans women on, but I don't think she had a choice given there was also a sex worker) and the sex worker specifically called her out for being a SWERF and she did the "my ideology trumps your lived experience" meme but more politely.

not to

here but regarding this meme specifically: dont we agree that ideology often DOES trump lived experience? e.g. if the relative of a murder victim supported the death penalty. or if the victim of a crime committed by an ethnic minority wanted them to all go back where they came from. the whole anecdote / data issue.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2021 18:13

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

goddamnedtwisto posted:

That's not what "lived experience" means, at all. Just to play along, the equivalent would be the victim of crime being told "Well actually no you were mugged by a white person".

Even if it *was* what this argument is about, your point is just the standard poo poo-for-brains "Aha, you want <good thing>, but other people want <bad thing>!" false equivalence.

its just a point about the meme, which seems a bit 'weve had enough of experts' to me

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Mar 30, 2021 18:39

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Lungboy posted:

She's since done a 180 and is now very much in favour of decriminalisation of sex work after talking to sex workers about it, rather than her previous view of making it illegal to pay for sex.

those two views are mutually compatible though arent they?

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 01:28

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Tesseraction posted:

Honestly while I support the idea of Northern Independence (and indies in general) I am more interested in the NIP as a counterpunch to Smithers-style Labour and will be v. interested to see how the Hartlepool by-election explodes.

i think it would be cool to for nip to get on question time in place of ukip.

more broadly, the difference between snp and nip is the north of england doesnt have much in the way of devolved powers and it would be interesting to see what they did with them.

keen to see whether nip take more of a chunk out of the tories or labour. presumably the tories? cause of the blue wall. the cities are going to stay labour arent they

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 02:36

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

TACD posted:

I�ve tried a few different therapists before and it seems like the field is just not geared to provide what I need � if I�m going to therapy it�s because I need advice on how to deal with my situation / issues, and therapy just asks me to think about things in a different way when thinking about these things inside and out is all I�ve been doing and is why I�m all hosed up lol

I also feel like the therapists I�ve seen end up getting annoyed with me because I�m not seeing the point they�re trying to obliquely make instead of just saying outright

It is a good post though

the trend is away from directive therapy towards person-centred therapy. if you want advice then people here will be glad to provide it - but a good therapist will challenge the idea that external advice is what you need to improve your situation.

if you can't afford therapy or are on a long waiting list then there are free CBT online courses and piles of books that have useful step by step approaches. the most common one is where you make a diary at the end of each day and note what you did at each hour and how you felt

it's a voyage of self discovery and can feel like hard work - but unlike a job, it is at least something you do entirely for your own benefit and that of the people around you. good luck!

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 16:45

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Ravel posted:

I managed to buy a one bed flat and the housing association who own the freehold have just given me and every other leaseholder in the building a charge of 30k to pay for further fire remediation. Is anyone else in this situation?

kind of. there was a leak in the roof that i reported and about a year later i got letters saying how the council has appointed commercial suppliers to put it right and it looks to be costing a million quid. which divided by the number of flats is 5 figures. on the other hand id assume their building insurance would cover it but if so why are they telling me what it costs...?????????

how long do you have to pay the money? might be worth getting a solicitor involved. property owners are a very influential lobby so i feel like the tories will crack and pay this stuff soon

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 17:20

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Barry Foster posted:

I was really leery about this as well and was getting a bit frustrated with the way my therapist kept bringing back my issues with the world back to me, but ultimately it's their job to help you, not the world.

[...]

Like, lots and lots and lots of people before us and around us have fought the good fight, not just relentlessly but with optimism and good cheer, and it's not like they're any less aware of the problems than we are. If you need to speak to a counsellor, it's because your problems are yours, if that makes sense? I can probably find a better way of putting that.

i think you put it very well. lets get a despair is counter-revolutionary, kids (dick for short) gangtag going

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 17:24

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Prospect posted:

As things stand, differential electoral turnout compounds the demographic drift: Ipsos Mori estimates that turnout in 2019 was 47 per cent for the youngest adults against 74 per cent for pensioners. Some of this is about the logistical difficulties of registering to vote if you rent and move frequently. Unfortunately, at the moment, the main �reform� in the air is not about narrowing this gap, but instead demanding extra identity checks against non-existent voter fraud�which, by demanding extra paperwork, would work to entrench it. We would do better looking at our antiquated electoral system while being under no illusion that mending it can fix the whole problem.

now that the democrats are pushing for uk voters to register, can someone into pop data let me know what increasing youth turnout to 74% would do? how many extra votes is that? feels like in an ageing society it might not even have that great an effect but happy to be gainsaid

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 18:00

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Jedit posted:

If turnout among the cohorts 18-34 matched that of the 65+ cohort, the Tories would never win an election again.

thanks, thats the most encouraging news ive heard all day. if anything young people have an advantage as theyre more mobile and can be registered to vote where it can make a difference. (ofc so can second home owners but they are outnumbered by students right?)

on the downside there are boundary changes and voter suppression via id

would be interested to understand how groups like momentum are approaching this

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 20:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:58

Breath Ray: Nov 19, 2010

Breath Ray posted:

thanks, thats the most encouraging news ive heard all day. if anything young people have an advantage as theyre more mobile and can be registered to vote where it can make a difference. (ofc so can second home owners but they are outnumbered by students right?)

on the downside there are boundary changes and voter suppression via id

would be interested to understand how groups like momentum are approaching this

quoting myself so i can attach somethijng:

these look like four seats labour lost through complacency. without knowing the margins it's hard to know how fearful to be about the other constituencies they did hold

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Mar 31, 2021 20:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT March 2021 - Two Flags One Pole