General News Thread

[2Bad]

I can write that because that's an accurate description as to how you've always acted Leo.

- - - Updated - - -

This is normal.jpg

[chrnno]

If you really think deeply about it, what is helping people, and what is vote buying?

Well in an ideal world there would be no difference but I suppose you could say the first is spending the least money to the greatest effect for as many people as possible and the second is giving money to a specific group of representatives then leaving them free to decide how to spend it and reap the benefits thereof.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be asking if it would be done absent any favourable votes. To take the examples from here; reducing student fees is something I generally approve though off course details may change that, dedicating a significant amount of extra money to a specific region when austerity is the government's platform requires very good reasons to do. So without a through knowledge of how everything would actually go I would see the first as helping people and the second as vote buying.

[SeiKeo]

To take the examples from here; reducing student fees is something I generally approve though off course details may change that, dedicating a significant amount of extra money to a specific region when austerity is the government's platform requires very good reasons to do.

There's no reason not to phrase this as 'Dedicating a significant amount of extra money to a specific social group [i.e. students] when austerity is the government's platform requires very good reasons.' So is it acceptable to distribute public funds on a basis of economic groupings and not regional ones? It's not a meaningful distinction, especially since there's no way to delineate a nefarious practice of 'vote-buying' from properly functioning politics. A representative gets funding for a project their constituents favor, and they are assured that their interests are protected and re-elect.

[2Bad]

The problems with your example:

1. The person calling for student relief doesn't support austerity. (This is the big one really)
2. There is are numerous significant differences between the groupings of student and All Northern Irish, not the least of which being that the former has actual avenues of distribution and control via the schools, whereas NI doesn't have an actual government, in case we all forgot (which makes me doubt that a large amount of this sum isn't going to be shoved up the DUP's butt and forgotten about.
3. The distinction between paying to the needs of ordinary citizens across the country and across a variety y ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic groupings vs paying a cabal of hard right lunatics at the edge of the world shouldn't need explanation

[Five_X]

This was, of course, a study by UW commissioned by the city of Seattle.

OH

that UW

It's not like the billion pounds is going into the pockets of the DUP, it's being used to build stuff in Ireland, or is Austerity Good Now

If you were to ask my old Irish colleagues, it should go towards paying Protestants to have more babies so that the Catholics don't overrun Loyal Ulster.

[chrnno]

There's no reason not to phrase this as 'Dedicating a significant amount of extra money to a specific social group [i.e. students] when austerity is the government's platform requires very good reasons.' So is it acceptable to distribute public funds on a basis of economic groupings and not regional ones? It's not a meaningful distinction, especially since there's no way to delineate a nefarious practice of 'vote-buying' from properly functioning politics. A representative gets funding for a project their constituents favor, and they are assured that their interests are protected and re-elect.

The people calling for money to students are not the ones talking about austerity so it would be 'Dedicating a significant amount of extra money to a specific social group [i.e. students] requires very good reasons.' and the reasons in this case are that education is fundamental for a country thus qualifies as 'very good' to me, though again how it would be done would determine whether I support it or not. Ultimately what you do is less important than how you do it.

Distributing money to a region specifically above others requires special reasons because as a rule the actions of the federal government should be for the entire country. Building up infrastructure everywhere or up to a certain standard is good, giving money for infrastructure to a single region when you are cutting such expenses everywhere else is only acceptable in cases of things like a disaster or being by far the worst area.

And really an actual proper comparison between the two scenarios would be students of Northern Ireland getting their fees cut or infrastructure for all of the UK, the first I would require special reasons to agree with and the second though I would be willing to agree first I would have to question where so much money is coming from. Both of which are the same reaction I have to their counterparts.

I will be honest and say that if you really think because something isn't clear is reason to give it up entirely then I am glad the vast majority isn't like you because very little, if anything, that matters is simple. I mean I live in a country under a serious problem of vote buying and the scandal got big enough everyone that pays a bit of attention to news certainly heard about it but you are saying that just because there is a small part of vote buying that is hard to distinguish from a working society there is no issue, I am sorry but that just makes zero sense to me.

[Seika]

It's funny how the right and center go on about "money trees!!!!!" when the spending will help poor people, but will defend it when it's straight up vote buying lol.

I would have thought "here is money, give me votes" made it quite clear that I misliked the whole business, but perhaps that was a touch too subtle for you. It is nonetheless a practical reality of the present system so, until that's changed (happening: never), one has to examine it in that context. Not decide purely that one instance or another is a vastly more egregious problem just because of who happens to be doing it.

[2Bad]

I would have thought "here is money, give me votes" made it quite clear that I misliked the whole business, but perhaps that was a touch too subtle for you.

It is the characterization of student aid as the same sort of blatant bribery that I am raking you over the coals for.

[Seika]

It is the characterization of student aid as the same sort of blatant bribery that I am raking you over the coals for.

Oh, come on, that's actually undeniable. Before the election: not even on his radar (because he's a hard-left 70s troglodyte who hasn't caught up to his own party's achievements in broadening university access). When the election gets called:

It's not subtle. It's not even trying to be disguised.

Besides which, I'm fascinated by your comment that "the former has actual avenues of distribution and control via the schools", because it seems like (yet another) misunderstanding of what goes on here. Universities are not involved in the loan process, except in setting fees, and they almost universally set them at the cap, because why wouldn't they when everyone has to get a loan to pay for it and the loan necessarily covers the fee cap. Money comes directly from government, and goes either straight to the university (for tuition) or directly to us (maintenance).

[2Bad]

Oh, come on, that's actually undeniable. Before the election: not even on his radar (because he's a hard-left 70s troglodyte who hasn't caught up to his own party's achievements in broadening university access). When the election gets called:

It's not subtle. It's not even trying to be disguised.

Wow he... campaigned on the platform, what a heinous monster.

What you seem unable to grasp, what you will likely continue to deny after you yourself benefit from it when the Tory's collapse under their own weight and a real government takes hold, is that relieving student debt is not BRIBERY. It is necessity. What the Tories are doing, they are doing for no benefit other than the maintenance of their own power (if you can even call this "power"). What Corbyn and Labour are offering, and what the Dems over here were offering, has to be done. Loans are crushing our generation under the boot heel, and you claim that the idea of dealing with this national (indeed, global) issue is the same as creating an Ulster based slush fund. Hm.

Besides which, I'm fascinated by your comment that "the former has actual avenues of distribution and control via the schools", because it seems like (yet another) misunderstanding of what goes on here. Universities are not involved in the loan process, except in setting fees, and they almost universally set them at the cap, because why wouldn't they when everyone has to get a loan to pay for it and the loan necessarily covers the fee cap. Money comes directly from government, and goes either straight to the university (for tuition) or directly to us (maintenance).

This is a clarity issue (loans work much the same here) on my part: what I am saying is that here we have actual targets that can be paid to and functional apparatuses that can be made use of. What is being discussed with regards to NI has none of the above. There is a vague notion that it'll be used for public works, but public works by... what government, exactly? NI is non-functional at the moment. And of course this is only going to piss off Wales and, more importantly, Scotland (because you definitely want to cut out where you just won a bunch of fresh seats).

The party of austerity is paying a bribe to a party that can't really use it for what they (claim to) want to use it for (though really, again, they just want to skim from it most likely), just to prop themselves up, are cutting out people they NEED to keep, and can't even get a guarantee from the people they're buying that they'll uphold the deal.


As an additional note:

(yet another) misunderstanding of what goes on here

Yes, please, tell me again how May wasn't a complete moron to risk her majority.

[aldeayeah]

I've had free public education all the way up to Master's. Yay Spain.

otoh the facilities in our unis kinda suck but hey

[Seika]

It necessity. What the Tories are doing, they are doing for no benefit other than the maintenance of their own power (if you can even call this "power"). What Corbyn and Labour are offering, and what the Dems over here were offering, has to be done.

And we're back to "these people are evil monsters who can have no good intentions whatsoever, while the other side are the only rational and moral actors". The Tories got the most votes and the most seats. They have the right to try to form a government. It's not a heinous act, it's how democracy works. For the most part, they're decent people who slightly disagree with you about economics and social policy, and who would like to gather a parliamentary majority because they think they can do their best for the country that way.

Demonisation helps no-one.

Loans are crushing our generation under the boot heel, and you claim that the idea of dealing with this national (indeed, global) issue is the same as creating an Ulster based slush fund. Hm.

I have a hell of a lot more student debt than I ought to, and even so I care enormously more about housing prices, because that's by far the more significant lifetime financial issue. Loans don't affect my credit, they don't have to be begun to be paid back until I start earning a halfway decent amount (substantially more than I am now), repayments are set at a portion of my income above the threshold so they can't bankrupt me, and if I just arse about for the next thirty years without repaying, it gets cancelled. I'm hardly overjoyed about it, but it's far from crushing me under its bootheel.

Besides which, a good half of this generation still isn't even going to university, so proclamations that it'll trigger the inevitable millennial uprising always smack to me of the middle class being incapable of looking beyond their own circumstances.

There is a vague notion that it'll be used for public works, but public works by... what government, exactly? NI is non-functional at the moment.

If nothing else, via direct rule. I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if the DUP would rather the reversion to that for a while, because it means they don't risk a second RHI scandal when this is being distributed, while looking more like coalition partners than lackeys.

Yes, please, tell me again how May wasn't a complete moron to risk her majority.

Oh, for goodness' sake, not this chestnut again. It was a perfectly rational decision at the time, which went wrong afterwards because May ran a horror show of a campaign and Corbyn promised to ruin the economy.

[SpoonyViking]

What you seem unable to grasp, what you will likely continue to deny after you yourself benefit from it when the Tory's collapse under their own weight and a real government takes hold, is that relieving student debt (like most is not BRIBERY. It necessity.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, though.

[2Bad]

And we're back to "these people are evil monsters who can have no good intentions whatsoever, while the other side are the only rational and moral actors". The Tories got the most votes and the most seats. They have the right to try to form a government. It's not a heinous act, it's how democracy works. For the most part, they're decent people who slightly disagree with you about economics and social policy, and who would like to gather a parliamentary majority because they think they can do their best for the country that way.

Demonisation helps no-one.

That's not even demonization, it's an accurate description of the act in question. The Tories are bribing a rogue political party to prop themselves up, almost assuredly to the benefit of no normal citizens in the end.

Additionally, it doesn't actually matter whether they're cynical cutthroats or genuinely believe that Austerity Is The Way, The Truth, and the Light, austerity murders people either way.

I have a hell of a lot more student debt than I ought to, and even so I care enormously more about housing prices, because that's by far the more significant lifetime financial issue. Loans don't affect my credit, they don't have to be begun to be paid back until I start earning a halfway decent amount (substantially more than I am now), repayments are set at a portion of my income above the threshold so they can't bankrupt me, and if I just arse about for the next thirty years without repaying, it gets cancelled. I'm hardly overjoyed about it, but it's far from crushing me under its bootheel.

Besides which, a good half of this generation still isn't even going to university, so proclamations that it'll trigger the inevitable millennial uprising always smack to me of the middle class being incapable of looking beyond their own circumstances.

You were talking about student debt so that's what was covered. Housing costs aren't a strict youth issue (although it's worse for us than old people), but you ALSO oppose doing anything about that so...

Cutting down barriers to attendance increases attendance.

If nothing else, via direct rule. I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if the DUP would rather the reversion to that for a while, because it means they don't risk a second RHI scandal when this is being distributed, while looking more like coalition partners than lackeys.

There's hardly a fear of looking like lackeys, they're the ones beating up May for her lunch money.

Oh, for goodness' sake, not this chestnut again. It was a perfectly rational decision at the time, which went wrong afterwards because May ran a horror show of a campaign and Corbyn promised to ruin the economy.

It was an irrational decision because she had a majority that she threw away, had no personal popularity with the larger public, has no charisma, and Corbyn/Labour were nicely corralled off to one side. Now the Tories are melting and Labour has more internal unity than ever because the Blairites are tripping over themselves to line up behind Corbyn as he shrinks the margin. You can harp on about her desire for a mandate or to control the Tories all you like, those were issues she could have dealt with by 1. ignoring it (it's not like people who want to gut the NHS care about popularity) and 2. internal debate. Instead, she gave socialism a global shot in the arm. I thank her for that, but it was inarguably a mistake on her part.

[Kareshy]

I don't see how you can simultaneously maintain the position that May isn't a colossal moron on the basis that her decision making wasn't wrong at the time, she just ran her campaign... like a colossal moron.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, for Napoleon, invading Russia was a feasible reasonable idea, but you can't detach that part from how badly it all got fucked up later.

[Rafflesiac]

Wait a second...

If the Russian winter is Russia's greatest defense, Trump wants to tank the atmosphere and accelerate global warming so he can invade Russia!

[Tobias]

So McConnell has 200 billion in his pocket to be floating as bribes he needs to drop today. You think he will be destinguished about it and bring in a briefcase or just decide he might as well go balls deep and show up at a few senators door holding a bag with a dollar sign on it.

[Mattias]

So McConnell has 200 billion in his pocket to be floating as bribes he needs to drop today. You think he will be destinguished about it and bring in a briefcase or just decide he might as well go balls deep and show up at a few senators door holding a bag with a dollar sign on it.

I'd say he'd try to be distinguished, but fail and just look skeazy. So a solid gold, jewel encrusted briefcase with "BRIBE" engraved on it.

[Tobias]

I'd say he'd try to be distinguished, but fail and just look skeazy. So a solid gold, jewel encrusted briefcase with "BRIBE" engraved on it.

That actually made me laugh probably way more then it had any right to

its just such a funny image.

[Seika]

That's not even demonization, it's an accurate description of the act in question. The Tories are bribing a rogue political party to prop themselves up, almost assuredly to the benefit of no normal citizens in the end.

Define for me a 'rogue political party'. Explain it with reference to the DUP's evident popularity in the areas they represent.

You were talking about student debt so that's what was covered. Housing costs aren't a strict youth issue (although it's worse for us than old people), but you ALSO oppose doing anything about that so...

That's not an answer to my point, which was that student debt is not killing us. And I don't believe that I've mentioned my stance on housing anywhere, but it's nice to know your mind-reading technology sucks.

Cutting down barriers to attendance increases attendance.

A) Financial barriers presently are low, as I've explained; B) Simply not everyone wants to go to university, and this is a perfectly healthy attitude if you don't think it'll benefit you as much as something else. Lowering barriers doesn't change that.

It was an irrational decision because she had a majority that she threw away

A majority so thin as to be effectively unworthy of the name when it comes to issues that might siphon off anyone from her party.

had no personal popularity with the larger public, has no charisma

She was up by dozens in personal favourability ratings. Less than a year ago, she had an advantage of seventy-one points. Would you stop projecting backwards onto what was happening at the time?

and Corbyn/Labour were nicely corralled off to one side.

Who were by no means likely to stay corralled over three years of divisive negotiations with Europe. Sensibly, even most Conservative politicians are aware exiting the Union is going to be a massive screw-up. That's why they were majority Remain in the first place. Waiting for that to become more evident as time went on, positions solidified, and the bills became explicit is not a vote-winning strategy if you've committed to carrying out the result of the referendum (especially not if your leader has decided this must be done with maximum prejudice).

You can harp on about her desire for a mandate or to control the Tories all you like, those were issues she could have dealt with by 1. ignoring it (it's not like people who want to gut the NHS care about popularity) and 2. internal debate.

I can call this nothing other than politically illiterate. Parties in a democracy care about their popularity because that gets them elected. One might think this was an evident fact.

I don't see how you can simultaneously maintain the position that May isn't a colossal moron on the basis that her decision making wasn't wrong at the time, she just ran her campaign... like a colossal moron.

Ah, someone else with the faulty mind-reading technology. I said the decision to call the election was rational. This was a rebuttal to Rodyle's idea that May's fault lay in that decision. I then said she ran her campaign badly, explaining the actual problem. This is not a full verdict on May's intelligence one way or another, and how one decides that it is such reaches beyond my comprehension.

Also Napoleon's a really awful example to append to this post because, strangely, he was generally respected as a military commander, but failed on some notable occasions. This indicates nuance, something you nonetheless seemed to have entirely forgotten when you decided on my behalf what I'd written.