General Politics Thread

[BawWatchin]

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

5000 members of Britain First have joined the Tories in the last few weeks, apparently. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/28/britain-first-far-right-members-5000-have-joined-tories

I'm surprised it took them that long, to be honest. 

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I'm surprised it took them that long, to be honest. 

A rigorous vetting process to ensure they fit the mold of the party.

[Londonwell]

3 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

As terrible as it is that IDS is getting a knighthood (and by no means am I arguing it’s not), I also feel it’s worth pointing out 2 things:
 

1. George Osbourne is *at-least* as much to blame as IDS for the failure of UC and the ensuing hardship/pain/death.

2. The basic principle of simplifying the social security system (hate calling it benefits) is imo probably a good one. As someone who has helped many people through the absolute farce of something like miscalculations resulting from claiming working tax credits whilst being self employed, it was/is a bloody nightmare.

In saying all that IDS is an absolute c**t and the honours system can f**k off. So I might as well not have written any of that. 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Londonwell

[Pet Jeden]

2 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

A rigorous vetting process to ensure they fit the mold of the party.

Would like to think that that was a deliberate pun about the old and foosty nature of the Conservative Party and not simply bad spelling. But ...

[pawpar]

Adolf Hitler to receive posthumous knighthood in New Year’s Honours list.

https://www.dailysquat.com/adolf-hitler-to-receive-posthumous-knighthood-in-new-years-honours-list/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&fbclid=IwAR02ZwDT21g4aHovb18K4ftja0OVR329GHt1Mss3QgJLBdjuZLErPKiVzs0

Edited December 28, 2019 by pawpar

[GordonS]

As terrible as it is that IDS is getting a knighthood (and by no means am I arguing it’s not), I also feel it’s worth pointing out 2 things:
 
1. George Osbourne is *at-least* as much to blame as IDS for the failure of UC and the ensuing hardship/pain/death.
2. The basic principle of simplifying the social security system (hate calling it benefits) is imo probably a good one. As someone who has helped many people through the absolute farce of something like miscalculations resulting from claiming working tax credits whilst being self employed, it was/is a bloody nightmare.
In saying all that IDS is an absolute c**t and the honours system can f**k off. So I might as well not have written any of that. 

The benefits system is a trade-off between simplicity, low cost and fairness. It can never be more then two of them.

Until recently it was low cost and fair (ish); there were benefits, supplements and components for all sorts of possible lifestyles and family circumstances. As you'll know best, it couldn't be simple that way though.

To increase simplicity you can either iron out all the complexity by removing it and paying more to mitigate against people with special circumstances losing out, or you can accept less fairness and those who are unlucky get shafted.

I think we all know into which camp Universal Credit falls.

You see this trade-off in lots of areas of tax and spend. A simple example is child benefit. They wanted to reduce the cost, so they stopped it for higher rate tax payers. So you can have a couple each earning a pound under the threshold and they keep it while a single parent earning a pound over the threshold loses it. They went for cost and simplicity. They could have gone for fairness and had it properly means tested, but that would have been more complex.

Fairness is debatable when talking about a few hundred pounds for someone on a good income. It's something else when it's people living well below the poverty line and contending with all sorts of family and illness problems.

[BawWatchin]

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

The benefits system is a trade-off between simplicity, low cost and fairness. It can never be more then two of them.

Until recently it was low cost and fair (ish); there were benefits, supplements and components for all sorts of possible lifestyles and family circumstances. As you'll know best, it couldn't be simple that way though.

To increase simplicity you can either iron out all the complexity by removing it and paying more to mitigate against people with special circumstances losing out, or you can accept less fairness and those who are unlucky get shafted.

I think we all know into which camp Universal Credit falls.

You see this trade-off in lots of areas of tax and spend. A simple example is child benefit. They wanted to reduce the cost, so they stopped it for higher rate tax payers. So you can have a couple each earning a pound under the threshold and they keep it while a single parent earning a pound over the threshold loses it. They went for cost and simplicity. They could have gone for fairness and had it properly means tested, but that would have been more complex.

Fairness is debatable when talking about a few hundred pounds for someone on a good income. It's something else when it's people living well below the poverty line and contending with all sorts of family and illness problems.
 

They went for low cost.... but it ultimately ended up costing them far more in legal battles and fees.

A price they'll happily pay for sticking it to the poor, disabled and vulnerable to appease their demographic.

 

Also, Oaksoft can f**k off.

Edited December 29, 2019 by BawWatchin

[John Lambies Doos]

Reading this I can't decide if Dominic Cummings is an evil genius or one of those folk who has read a very great deal, but just the wrong stuff.
 
https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-were-hiring-data-scientists-project-managers-policy-experts-assorted-weirdos/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
 
 

He really is pulling the strings

[ICTChris]

I might apply, I fit several categories.

[welshbairn]

It would be wonderful to blag your way through it by honing up on the jargon, and talk pure shite that nobody challenges because they don't understand it either, including Cummings.

[ICTChris]

It would be wonderful to blag your way through it by honing up on the jargon, and talk pure shite that nobody challenges because they don't understand it either, including Cummings.

You have described many, many jobs, almost none of,which involve Dominic Cummings.

[welshbairn]

33 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

 

You have described many, many jobs, almost none of,which involve Dominic Cummings.

 

I suspect Cummings is a bullshit artist too, who's realised one thing that's brought him success, that truth and logic don't matter in politics anymore, just emotional triggers. I doubt he's read any of the books and papers he mentions in his blog, just the introductions and conclusions, same way I blagged my way through University. He spins himself as an evil genius so people don't figure out how simple his idea is.

Edited January 2, 2020 by welshbairn

[cyderspaceman]

If Dominic Cummings was a "lefty" and saying exactly the same things,  the Express, DT and Mail would be tearing him to shreds and  demanding his removal.

He's a fucking dangerous loony.

Edited January 3, 2020 by cyderspaceman

[DeeTillEhDeh]

[BawWatchin]

17 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I have every hope that 2020 will be the year you post something constructive, and positive and dispense with the endless stream of misery-laden, conspiracy theory, chicken licken nonsense about the sky falling down over every single issue you post about.

I'd settle for just one fucking positive post from you.

Enjoy the war m8.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

I'm a lover not a fighter.

Strong advocate of the principle of non-violence.

I leave all the bafflingly macho nonsense to others.

You just leave it to the people you're happy to keep Scotland shackled to. 

[welshbairn]

Seems the miraculous Mission Impossible style escape by Carlos Ghosn was a bit more prosaic. Walked out the house, got on a train to Osaka and took a taxi to the airport. 

[cyderspaceman]

On 03/01/2020 at 20:08, BawWatchin said:

You just leave it to the people you're happy to keep Scotland shackled to. 

Shackles being tightened by the Tories who are delaying the UK budget until March 11th , which gives the Scottish government very little time to set its own budget which of course is dependent on how much money is 'allocated' by Westminster.

I smell Cummings influence.  Screw the Jocks.

[Detournement]

23 minutes ago, cyderspaceman said:

Shackles being tightened by the Tories who are delaying the UK budget until March 11th , which gives the Scottish government very little time to set its own budget which of course is dependent on how much money is 'allocated' by Westminster.

I smell Cummings influence.  Screw the Jocks.

It's more likely to be because Brexit has resulted in poorer forecasts.