RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Copses v forests of magic money trees. But many folks under the age of 40 don't see the issue.

I was chatting to an older teen yesterday who spent 10 minutes denouncing capitalism to me, and then said they didn't actually know what the LSE actually did and asked what it was and how it works. Whether they'll now think differently I don't know, but it was almost charming to see such certainty without understanding the process. And at heart it's hard to argue with a sense things should be fairer

I agree with the fairness piece- it’s how you get there that’s the key.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:GIven the age of Tory voters (nearly half are over 65), the party is at least a generation behind everyone else in believing in the Climate Emergency, let alone giving a flying shit about it.

But they do worry that the Germans are up to something.

Digby wrote:Of course seeing as she's yet to pay an serious taxation we'll have to wait and see how strong that lusting for socialism is in another 10 years

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Of course seeing as she's yet to pay an serious taxation we'll have to wait and see how strong that lusting for socialism is in another 10 years

Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Of course seeing as she's yet to pay an serious taxation we'll have to wait and see how strong that lusting for socialism is in another 10 years

Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

I don't discount the minority opinion, not least as I favour a reasonably high taxation level myself. Though I don't remotely want to touch socialism with a barge pole

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Her views of socialism might also depend on whether she thinks government is there mainly for her benefit or for the benefit of society at large.

it is possible to pay a lot of tax and also like socialism.

I don't discount the minority opinion, not least as I favour a reasonably high taxation level myself. Though I don't remotely want to touch socialism with a barge pole

Out of interest, how do you define socialism?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's true all around though. Everyone's realised that you can promise and say anything you like, because news spreads faster than fact checking nowadays.

There should be a law against politicians and media spreading verifiable falsehoods, with the first repetition necessitating public withdrawal of the statement, and punishments escalating if the lie is repeated.

Puja

Oh yes. But scale of promises is important too.

Indeed.

Got a belting example of being able to say whatever the hell you like today. Labour announce a policy of grants and interest free loans for home energy saving upgrades, which is costed as £60bn public outlay with the idea that it would stimulate construction and industries that make things like solar panels, heat pumps, insulation, etc and be an overall boost to the economy, as well as reducing bills and giving us a hope in hell of meeting our emissions targets. It's a really good policy.

Conservative response? "Independent experts and even Labour's own unions say their promises don't stack up. The reality is that Jeremy Corbyn's plans would wreck the economy, putting up bills for hardworking families - and preventing any real progress on climate change. Only Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have a proper plan to continue reducing carbon emissions faster than any other G20 country, building on the 400,000 low-carbon jobs we've already created, while keeping bills low."

You will not be surprised to learn that no independent experts or Labour's own unions have made a comment on this, let alone saying that it doesn't stack up. The second sentence is just saying the opposite of whatever Labour have said, "Corbyn says his plan will stimulate the economy, reduce bills, and help fight against climate change - the truth is that he will wreck the economy, raise bills, and burn the planet, and do it deliberately too, the communist fucker!" And then the last bit is the icing on the cake, saying that Boris has a plan to reduce carbon emission, when what they in fact have is a target which we are currently due to sail airily by.

Puja

Digby wrote:Also why those spends, are they the best returns for the economy and environment, or do they think they're politically popular?

Banquo wrote: How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

It does have the advantage over most government projects in that they're just providing the funding for the market to provide the execution, so there's fewer points of government failure.

The new build regulations are just as important IMO - it is mental that new developments are being built without solar panels, heat pumps and insulation, if for nothing other than the country's future energy security. Textbook case of the market needing to be nudged with legislation to move from making what's best for the individual/company to what's best overall.

The real trick that all parties are going to have to try and pull is the promising of new house building. It's an idea that every voter agrees needs doing, but as soon as you suggest doing it next door to them, it's an outrage.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:I will note that it's worthwhile being wary of some of the tactical voting sites. I've seen a couple where they recommend the Lib Dems a lot, often on scant evidence, and one where they recommend you should vote Labour in my constituency where the choice is basically between Lib Dem and Conservatives.

Yes, that's fair. Suspect some might be fakes set up by the Russian bot factories.
I think GetVoting.org is the main one (set up by Best For Britain)

Either way, don't trust any that don't show their working (Get Voting doesn't show their working, interestingly - they did for the European Elections)

Get Voting is the major one that I've heard of! Recommends voting for Chukka Ummuna in Westminster despite Lib Dems being nowhere in 2017. Mind, there's a decent argument that previous form is irrelevant given the recent upheaval and that polls should be considered more relevant. Then again, this is a belting example of the troubles with that (read the small print under the graph!):



Tactical.vote looks pretty good and shows its working (apostrophe is important in this sentence).

Puja

Banquo wrote:Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Net result...hung parliament. And with Boris' deal, he can't count on DUP support, surely.

A chance for a LAB/LIB/SNP coalition, even if only brief.

Honestly, for all the shit about Labour's position, it is the one that makes the most sense. Create a "better" deal, then put it to the people.

And don't campaign on it, it's not government's place to do that.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Feeling eerily similar to 2017 campaign so far, Labour united and making lots of popular promises, Tories with crap election slogans and tone deaf.

Net result...hung parliament. And with Boris' deal, he can't count on DUP support, surely.

A chance for a LAB/LIB/SNP coalition, even if only brief.

Honestly, for all the shit about Labour's position, it is the one that makes the most sense. Create a "better" deal, then put it to the people.

And don't campaign on it, it's not government's place to do that.

Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....

That said...what do think that 'chance' would actually deliver? And Labour's position is based on a pretty iffy premise tbh, and not convinced the govt shouldn't have a 'position' on EU membership.

Banquo wrote: Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: How is the 60 bn public outlay funded, out of interest, and over what period? I also understand it’s a free uplift for some people- who and how decided?— but loans for others (how repaid?). The idea sounds attractive, but the detail matters. At least Labour are trying to float new ideas mind.

I know you found some of the answers yourself, but the answer to who gets the freebie is means tested and and the loans are designed as repaid from some of the savings on the energy bills. It's on a similar basis to the system that's currently running in Scotland just on a much bigger scale.

Puja

Means testing is always a popular thing .

This is a massive project- interesting to see who is onside to start delivering. We all know how well government driven projects go....the idea is good in principle.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Campaign couldn't have started more badly for the Tories....
.

They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
They could have been forced to publish the report on Russian interference in UK elections.

But granted lying about sabotaging rape cases, trying to have the civil service act against political rivals, calling those who died at Grenfell stupid... all lends itself to a poor look

While Rees-Mogg's comments are appalling just on the surface level of insulting dead people for dying, if you look at them closely they get even worse. Saying that he would have disregarded the "stay-put" command of the fire service and that it would've been common sense to leave the building reveals a lot about his character. While "stay-put" was a horrible mistake at Grenfield because of the cladding and the way that the fire spread, it's designed to stop stairways from being clogged by people and allow the firefighters the best chance to access where they need to, control the blaze, and save everyone.

So JRM is saying that he would have disregarded the fire service and made sure that he was safe first, damaging the chances of everyone else who had obeyed the rules. And that's "common sense" in his opinion - do what's best for you, even if other people suffer and die for it.

I don't think we've learned anything new about him there, but it's disconcerting that he feels so comfortable saying it.

Puja

I'd merely like to say the stay put command might not have been a horrible mistake, they might have advised an evacuation and given it was a singl the stairwell with people descending in the smoke and the dark things might not have ended well anyway. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a fire safety expert and I'm loathe to judge the fire service in hindsight, even when the cladding wasn't doing what they'd expected. Essentially if the stay put command wasn't a huge mistake it might be the whole situation was simply horrible, and there wasn't a good outcome possible.