|
Isn't Class War running?
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:
I like the x-axis on that graph. I like the way that the bottom 10% of the population and the top 10% of the population combined (read:20% of the population) take up the same amount of space as the other 80% of the population. You could make a graph of how much tax benefit the tax cuts relative to income, or to tax paid. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
G1mby posted:Sure, but the question then is what do we use instead? Renewables are not going to be able to cover our entire demand. Probably stick with Coal and Gas on the (very) slow march to 100% renewable. Nearly every study shows throwing money into end-use efficiency would do more to combat CO2 than going Nuclear and it's really doubtful we could ever afford to go full Nuclear even if we did want to make the switch from Coal and Gas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
A lot of nuclear waste is usable as fuel in modern reactors, as well as the rather large stockpile of weapons grade material- the problems aren't technological they are more to do with creating the infrastructure to deal with it efficiently. Instead, because the motive is profit, and it's cheaper to just leave it sitting around while slightly easier to use fuel is available that's what will happen. Free market wins again, sorry environment, you can take another one for the team before you destroy the current concept of modern civilisation through climate change, you rascally thing you
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:That is very true, I just imagined they co-operated closely enough that their policy might be more or less the same. Is this not the case? From what all of my Scottish Green pals have told, it's not, although they might have been exaggerating a little bit to push the Scottish Greens' respectability more than the rUK Greens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Going back to the subject of spoiled ballots for a bit. Couldn't one vote for a joke party instead if they feel unsatisfied? It would at least give some use for their ballot and plus give a little positive thumbs up for satire. A lot of constituencies don't get any joke candidates. There is also the very mild chance of the joke candidate winning, as happened when Stuart Drummond ran for mayor of Hartlepool as a football mascot, won and then governed as a serious mayor. To be fair he then won re-election twice as a serious candidate and only lost the job because the Labour council got rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I like the x-axis on that graph. I like the way that the bottom 10% of the population and the top 10% of the population combined (read:20% of the population) take up the same amount of space as the other 80% of the population. Yes but people live off pounds not percentages. Changes in taxation which do nothing for the bottom 20% of taxpayers (as your graph shows) and returns more to the highest earners is hardly striking a blow for the common person is it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
namesake posted:Yes but people live off pounds not percentages. Changes in taxation which do nothing for the bottom 20% of taxpayers (as your graph shows) and returns more to the highest earners is hardly striking a blow for the common person is it? Actually the bottom ten percent don't pay any income tax, and the cuts take the next ten percent out of taxation as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Apparently if Theresa May manages to scrap the Human Rights Act in Westminster, it won't affect Scotland. http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scotland-exempt-from-tories-human-rights-act-axe-1-3559633 Incrementalism is happening, guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I like the x-axis on that graph. I like the way that the bottom 10% of the population and the top 10% of the population combined (read:20% of the population) take up the same amount of space as the other 80% of the population. What difference does it make? It's meant to show where the effects kick in and what they are. Or are you worried that it misrepresents just how small the group with the biggest benefit actually is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:That is very true, I just imagined they co-operated closely enough that their policy might be more or less the same. Is this not the case? I figure they co-operate in the same way Green parties do through the world: they're nominally all under one banner, so there's international conferences and the like. Japanese Greens and Brazillian ones alike presumably sign up to some basic principles but I don't think these involve the woo the England and Wales ones are being accused of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
I have to confess I don't know how I'm going to vote come May. Like, I'm cut from the old school Labour cloth and it's possible that even despite all their recent epic fails, I could be convinced to vote Labour as a vote against the Tories, but my MP is a certain ex-chancellor who has pissed me off quite extensively over the last six months or so. Equally, I'm so tribal that I don't know if I could hold my nose and vote SNP either. And I won't vote Green or Lib Dem and I have a lifelong allergy to Tories. So, unless the SSP are running somebody and I feel like wasting a vote on them, I've got quite a dilemma on my hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Fans posted:Probably stick with Coal and Gas on the (very) slow march to 100% renewable. Nearly every study shows throwing money into end-use efficiency would do more to combat CO2 than going Nuclear and it's really doubtful we could ever afford to go full Nuclear even if we did want to make the switch from Coal and Gas. I agree that's whats likely to happen - though I doubt that we'll see the money spent on end-use efficiency (see the new housing announcement that exempts them from emissions regulations).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What difference does it make? It's meant to show where the effects kick in and what they are. Or are you worried that it misrepresents just how small the group with the biggest benefit actually is? Regardless of what the graph actually shows, I really wish people wouldn't gently caress about with graphs like that for any reason. It makes you look dishonest even if your point is a good one because there is no legitimate reason to do it except to deceive (making the graph look nicer is not a legitimate reason).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Carrier posted:Regardless of what the graph actually shows, I really wish people wouldn't gently caress about with graphs like that for any reason. It makes you look dishonest even if your point is a good one because there is no legitimate reason to do it except to deceive (making the graph look nicer is not a legitimate reason). It makes it look more compact, which is easier to share around, so it's better at communicating certain information. I mean is this better?  The story's effectively the same, the benefits heavily skewed towards the top end and away from the bottom end, which is the opposite of what the Tories would like people to think. This super-big graph just sacrifices readability for detail - and that's basic detail for people who are only glancing at it anyway, looking at the shape But like I said it does overrepresent the size of the group getting the biggest benefits, so it could be used for people to push that idea. Tradeoffs I guess 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Northern Ireland needs to not cut benefits more than anywhere else as the increased poverty there is being taken advantage of by the remaining paramilitary groups as a recruitment tool and is thus a major threat to continuing peace there. I'd like to think when it comes down to it all the parties there know this to be true and wouldn't cut at all. Sinn Fein in particular have been by far the most vocal in opposing cuts but the DUP dont support it by any means remember they have a largely working class support base to. The UUP basically joined with the Tories last election so they will support cuts but gently caress the UUP seriously. The DUP is all for welfare reform. Their support does indeed come from working class unionists, but many of them vote purely on sectarian grounds and would vote DUP to "keep the shinners out" no matter how much it screwed over their own lives. The DUP knows they can gently caress over the people who vote for them and get away with it by going on TV and spouting sectarian bile every now and then. An even crazier and more bigoted party (Traditional Unionist Voice) is starting to eat into their vote, but let's not get too far into the NI political abyss here  What you say about creating poverty in NI being particularly dangerous is absolutely right. My mum is a social worker and people falling prey to paramilitaries and their drug networks for lack of any other route to take their lives is something she already sees too much of. The place is a tinderbox and either this UK government does not understand the first thing about it, or they just don't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:the cuts take the next ten percent out of taxation as well. If you currently earn £0-£10k, you get completely hosed by the proposed changes - you gain no benefit and suffer the most from the >£7b reduction in funding for public services If you currently earn £10k-£12.5k, you save up to £500 per year in income tax but almost certainly lose a lot more value from the necessary cuts to services If you currently earn £12.5k-£42k, you save £500/year in income tax. The impact of the cuts in services gets progressively less severe as your income increases If you currently earn £42k-£50k, you save £500/year from the change in the personal allowance and up to £1600 from the increase in the higher rate threshold. You probably earn enough to be completely unaffected by cuts to services. If you currently earn £50k-£100k, you save £2100/year from the combined changes in tax and don't give a poo poo about the cuts to services. If you currently earn £100k+, you save between £2100 and £1600/year from the tax changes and don't give a poo poo about cuts to services. These changes hurt poor people and help people with high incomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:When it comes down for it I will probably end up voting for Alliance unless I end up in Derry and Eamonn McCann decides to run in which case I will be supporting him, though the last time I spoke to him he was adamant he was more concerned with local issues than Westminster politics. I like Eamonn and agree with a lot of what he says but he is dyed in the wool SWP, I get a bit irked that he never runs openly under the SWP banner but instead runs under various Socialist alliances (that are usually just the local SWP heads with a different logo). I'm also a little bit uncomfortable with his parties (admittedly minor) connections to the IRSP and 32-CSM, he completely rejects force republicanism and publicly denounces dissidents but they play a big role in the Anti-War Coalition (which is probably his biggest project at the mo). Not to mention how he likes to wax lyrical about the Raytheon raid while politely failing to mention that the majority of participants had connections to various dissident groups... Minor quibbles I guess. Really it comes down to whether or not you would vote SWP If there was no other real Socialist alternative (barring SF and SDLP I guess)
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:A lot of nuclear waste is usable as fuel in modern reactors, as well as the rather large stockpile of weapons grade material- the problems aren't technological they are more to do with creating the infrastructure to deal with it efficiently. quote:Instead, because the motive is profit, and it's cheaper to just leave it sitting around while slightly easier to use fuel is available that's what will happen. Free market wins again, sorry environment, you can take another one for the team before you destroy the current concept of modern civilisation through climate change, you rascally thing you
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
The Labour party, everyone!Left Futures posted:.. This is why I wouldn't feel comfortable voting Labour right now - I trust the Labour leadership about as much as I trust the Tories and Lib Dems. Unless something changes I guess I'll be voting Green or spoiling my ballot. Those seem to be the least poo poo options  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
I'm in the same boat and I think a fair few others are too. Obviously spoiling makes no sense if there's any party you'd support on the ballot, so I expect I'll be voting Green.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I'm in a very safe Labour seat, and the only real alternative is the SNP or the lib dems if you're really stretching. The labour MP for Glasgow North East isn't actually all that bad, but the party as a whole just don't care enough about places like Glasgow because it's so safe for them. So I'll be voting for the SNP, even if it only manages to shorten the lead Labour have. The head of the Scottish tories is running in there, so I can't pass up the opportunity to vote against her - no knobs on the sheet from me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Right but these aren't small problems. Sellafield has been loving up waste reprocessing for decades, and that's with stuff that was designed to be reprocessed from the beginning. The original reason for reprocessing was to get that tasty weapons grade plutonium out of the spent Windscale Pile fuel, so there is that. There are a couple of reasons for doing various levels of reprocessing after that - Uranium mining, like all heavy metal mining can have a significant environmental impacts, so the question comes as to whether it is cheaper to mine than reprocess because it's actually cheaper, or because mining isn't actually paying for its externalities. Reprocessing helps with waste disposal as well, it allows you to separate out the really dangerous stuff from the bulk of the spent fuel - this lets you perform vitrification and other similar tricks on the reduced volume of waste to make it easier to handle. Its also worth remembering that the cost of fuel in a nuclear power station is a much smaller fraction of the cost of the power than in a conventional station - I'd have to check but its pretty much something like 20% of the cost compared to 80% for conventional stations. This means that the cost of nuclear power is relatively inelastic with respect to fuel costs, something that makes overall cost comparisons difficult against a background of fluctuating gas prices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Just seen this new YouGov poll tweeted. Dunno where the full thing is. Scottish voting intention: SNP 43 Labour 23 Conservative 17 Liberal Democrat 5 Green 5 UKIP 5 Other 2 That's.....quite a change! Also Nick Griffin has apparently been expelled from the BNP. Teehee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Right but these aren't small problems. Sellafield has been loving up waste reprocessing for decades, and that's with stuff that was designed to be reprocessed from the beginning. Oh I'm not saying it's a small problem, I'm saying that it's one with a solution that will be ignored because there's currently no motive to solve it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Acaila posted:Just seen this new YouGov poll tweeted. Dunno where the full thing is. That's based on a small and not necessarily representative subsample of a national poll: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/yoh7f4x8x5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-300914.pdf 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Ah, thanks for the full thing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Acaila posted:Also Nick Griffin has apparently been expelled from the BNP. Teehee.  Full Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29453341 Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
"bringing the BNP into disrepute" I'm just going to read that a few times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
You can't quote the story and not include the accompanying picture, which is loving amazing: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Is it possible for me to ask a question regarding benefits in here? If not, tell me to sod off but I'm gunna go for it anyway. I applied for PIP in January of this year, my mother phoned earlier on in regards to my F2F assessment which I have received no notification of as of yet, however I was lucky enough to get an appointment tomorrow. I am enquiring as to how long it will take after the appointment tomorrow, will I receive my payment? And will I also get backdated to the date of my claim? I urgently need the money as I am completely unable to work at the moment. I have had the occasional job here and there within the past year however I always get ill again after being in the job for a few weeks. I really don't know what to do anymore I am only on the low end of ESA so I am completely broke 24:7. Will they take this into account?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:You can't quote the story and not include the accompanying picture, which is loving amazing:
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Onion Vanguard posted:Is it possible for me to ask a question regarding benefits in here? If not, tell me to sod off but I'm gunna go for it anyway. You might want to ring your council's welfare rights department, ours is pretty helpful, though they're harder to get hold of than the A-Team at times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:"bringing the BNP into disrepute" "Mr Griffin made remarks describing members of ethnic minority groups as something other than "niggers", "ragheads", "wogs" and "Pakis" and suggested that not all of them should be shipped back to Blackistan on the next banana boat into Plymouth harbour, so we had no choice but to expel him from the party whose values he was damaging with his thoughtless comments."
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Last general election my options were Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP and NF lol. I voted lib dem because I was annoyed by labour and look what that got me so I'll probably just stick with labour I suppose
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Jose posted:Last general election my options were Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP and NF lol. I voted lib dem because I was annoyed by labour and look what that got me so I'll probably just stick with labour I suppose Last go round the Labour bloke came to my door, I told him I was still pissed off about the war so was voting Lib Dem but the rest of the house would stick with Labour. He actually had a punt at at arguing that he personally went on the demonstrations against etc but got bristly when I asked why he wasn't running as an Independent now then. Not that it matters, I live in a Tory safe seat so my vote is worth about as much as a vomit-flecked week old Metro being licked by rats in the dark tunnel between Euston and King's Cross stations. Probably spoil my ballot or vote Labour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Jose posted:Last general election my options were Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, BNP, UKIP and NF lol. I voted lib dem because I was annoyed by labour and look what that got me so I'll probably just stick with labour I suppose Same, it's great. I should have voted Money Reform, whoever they actually are. The last time Canterbury wasn't Tory was 1910, when somebody ran an Independent Unionist platform and won. More than a loving century. Brazier's deathgrip has been only ever increasing since the battering he took in 97, being a mere 7 points clear. Six MPs, all tory, since the end of the great war. I wonder if this new batch of students will fall for the Lib Dems too. I hear they're discussing drug reform!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I saw/read some of Boris Johnson's Conservative party conference speech (Christ, what an awful, awful person he is) and there was one particularly -worthy moment when he says Boris Johnson posted:In the last few months we have seen the beginning of the end of the tapioca-like consensus that Ed Miliband could somehow osmotically infiltrate or inveigle himself into power by pandering to his core vote and relying on the gross unfairness of the electoral system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I saw/read some of Boris Johnson's Conservative party conference speech (Christ, what an awful, awful person he is) If anyone is curious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtxLAIIxLOQ It's worth watching the first minute odd just to see his inspirational crowd rousing not take and then completely fall apart at what was obviously meant to be a banging, applauded gag against UKIP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
XMNN posted:I saw/read some of Boris Johnson's Conservative party conference speech (Christ, what an awful, awful person he is) He really is one of the biggest hypocrites in UK politics, which is quite a feat. My personal ironi-meter capped out at his parts about "not giving foreigners the first chance to buy UK properties" (paraphrased), given what he's done as Mayor of London.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:51
|
|