General Election 2024

[Fortmax2020]

Jul 9, 2024 8:25:45 GMT chrisl said:

Has anyone else seen this: www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/08/reform-uk-under-pressure-to-prove-all-its-candidates-were-real-people#:~:text=The%20Guardian%20has%20also%20learned,generated%2C%20is%20a%20real%20person.

While I'm not one for mad conspiracies, this one does potentially have legs and it isn't something I wouldn't put past Putin's Poodle and co.

Reform candidates are appearing hard to track down and some have used AI generated impressions of themselves for photos... but I'm not sure we are quite at the point of fake candidates yet.

But I also wouldn't be surprised if this had happened. After all Farage didn't get round to vetting his candidates but will inevitably blame this on others.

[The Doctor]

Can't say I've been too impressed with Starmer so far. He's the fucking prophet of doom.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

He is sadly what I expected him to be.

While he isn't a feckless idiot like the last three, he's absolutely carrying on with business as usual. I mean he's proving to be David Cameron Mark 2 so far.

[legios]

Yeah. I said to my sister when he was elected that it felt like it was "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", and " I guess we have swapped Blue folks for Red folks, but they still work for the same people".

I have seen little so far to dissuade me from that view.

Karl

[The Doctor]

I hope he surprises me in the long run but all I hear from him so far is: "Everything is shit, no money for anything, hard choices are coming. Oh, and fuck pensioners. Give me free things."

Hardly a message of hope or change.

-Ralph

[Cullen]

I'm still hopeful they'll deliver positive changes and they are right to get all the unpopular decisions done early. The Tory's were paralysed because they never wanted to make any unpopular changes, and as a result never did anything.

But the whole gift things is unbelievable. Like I know getting some clothes isn't quite on the 100s of millions of pounds to my mates for PPE contract level of corruption but come on. They know the public is fed up of this shit. The response has been tone deaf - they all just live in a bubble were this is the done thing and think its ok.

I've worked in regulated industries before were you get anti-bribery training every year and cannot accept any gift from anyone, and have to declare if someone has tried. Why this doesn't extend to politics baffles me as it's the place where its most needed.

[The Doctor]

When I worked on Social Care you were not allowed to accept gifts. No exceptions. It was against the codes of conduct and was grounds for gross misconduct and dismissal. I often had to gently say no to clients who wanted to give me things. I got paid. I could buy my own stuff.

All Starmer has to do is to just turn up at the next PMQ with some new glasses on. When asked, he could say "Oh I just bought these myself and donated my last pair to a charity". Plenty of charities send glasses abroad.

But cutting money for pensioners while swanning around in free stuff is tone deaf and deeply disappointing for a Labour PM. Yes, the row has been kicked up by right-wing media but I find myself in the uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with their critiques for once.

-Ralph

[Bogatan]

Even in retail theres no gifts from vendors rules.

Honestly though I almost dont care about them accepting gifts if they are admitting to it, but what I do want to know is who is giving them and why. It feels too much like treating the symptoms rather than the underlying cause.

Instead of journalists hounding Starmer about his free glasses (which Im not against, not a Starmer fan) please go hound the entity who gave them, find out why they felt the need to give them. At the very least thats more interesting to me. But then keep tabs on them until they shockingly are the beneficiaries of some government policy. Then go after the politician for corruption.

[Rich]

The thing about this is the absurdity of the whole situation and the fact that we as an electorate create a climate where this is necessary. I'm sure they felt that keeping up appearances is necessary and also expensive so fair enough to take some free clothes.

Clearly it isn't fair enough. But it's also true that if the top people in Labour (and particularly the women because society is what it is) did not dress well then they would be mocked and, bizarrely, some people wouldn't vote for them.

[The Doctor]

True, but then I have had to buy work clothing for previous jobs from my own money. So should politicians. They are well paid for their work.

-Ralph

[Cullen]

There's an argument that the head of government should be well dressed when acting in an official capacity, but even still that should be paid for by the state - he shouldn't have to take gifts.

Like I said this is small fry compared to some of the things that the Tories did (and nothing compared to the legalised corruption in politics in the US) but the double standard with a lot of other industries is baffling to me. These are the people who make our laws - making sure they can't be bribed by anyone would seem like an obvious thing to have in place.

[Fortmax2020]

What Cullen said.

I don't think it was a coincidence all this tumbled out around the time of the Labour Party conference. They set themselves up for a fall, but I notice no MPs of other parties (like Reform and the official Opposition) are being quizzed in the same way. Not a coincidence either and just shows how our media are led through the nose.

[legios]

It is worth remembering that large chunks of our media are owned and operated on behalf of people who are not politically neutral. Significant proportions of the print media are owned by people who directly favor a Conservative government as it aligns with their own "do not pay tax, be able to exert proper control over my workers and keep them in their place" agenda.

In this respect it is less that the media are being led by the nose, and more that the media are doing their job and working towards the objectives that they are employed to deliver. When looking at what the British media cover, and the narrative they choose to establish when doing so it is always worth remembering the maxim "Qui Bono" ("Who benefits?").

Karl

[legios]

Sept 23, 2024 13:33:36 GMT Cullen said:

These are the people who make our laws - making sure they can't be bribed by anyone would seem like an obvious thing to have in place.

Having such a thing would get in the way of them accepting goods and services in exchange for services rendered though. What would be the point of being in Parliament if you can't get stuff before you leave politics and get a directorship in return for the amendments to laws and policies that you have obtained for grateful companies?

This is why a lot of the Commons fights tooth and nail against any extension to codes of conduct, the register of members interests, etc. And why they will almost universally be found claiming that members of their families work for them so that they can claim the subsidy for the wages that they may or may not be actually paying them.

I'm not saying that all of our career politicians are corrupt by any means, just enough to make it a significant factor in the running of our country.

Karl

[Bogatan]

While you're not wrong about who owns the media, in fairness most of the media were pretty ruthless (eventually) going after the tories while in power. I'd feel at least a little hypocritical complaining about that same behaviour now.

End of the day labour only have themselves to blame for this one.

[Bogatan]

Sept 23, 2024 12:15:33 GMT Rich said:

The thing about this is the absurdity of the whole situation and the fact that we as an electorate create a climate where this is necessary. I'm sure they felt that keeping up appearances is necessary and also expensive so fair enough to take some free clothes.

Clearly it isn't fair enough. But it's also true that if the top people in Labour (and particularly the women because society is what it is) did not dress well then they would be mocked and, bizarrely, some people wouldn't vote for them.

True though between decent salaries and expenses Im not sure freebies should be needed. But clothes maybe. I thought it was a little lame but you can maybe agree with Starmers response that accepting a free box for arsenal games from a security perspective (and associated expenses) might be justifiable.

But by the time you are getting to "I took Taylor Swift tickets because my daughters a fan........"

As I said before though, who is providing the freebies and why is much more of a concern to me.

Like, Steve Van Zandt when he tours, gives tickets to teachers for free because hes a big supporter of education.

If Van Zandt (or Swift or whoever) directly invites an MP because of a shared cause, that doesnt bother me, though I want to know what that cause is. but in theory I dont see that as a bad thing in of itself.

If its a third party providing them, then it starts getting messier.

[Rich]

My post wasn't very clear (written in a hurry during my break). Just to stress: I don't think they should be taking donations. I was trying to imagine why they thought it was ok.

I hate that politics is based so much on how things are perceived and so little on what might be considered to be an objective assessment of the good and the bad. Eg 'Sunak leaves war memorial early' = end of days. Whereas: 'politicians substantially at fault for Grenfell'. That made a ripple for about 24 hours. Even the post office thing. Where was all the outrage before the TV programme came along?

And it's the same with this winter fuel cut. It's clearly not ideal but the thought process behind it makes some sense in a government debt crisis. By contrast, on a scale of harm, according to some experts, the announcement about social care will cause far more suffering but we've heard almost nothing about that because it just doesn't land with the same emotional punch.

Once upon a time 'optics' was just a sci-fi way for Megs to say he liked Optimus' eyes but now it's a depressing endorsement of the fact that it's the way things look that rules.

[The Doctor]

It's going well:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/25/labour-leadership-loses-conference-vote-on-winter-fuel-payments

I can't help but feel we have exhanged one lot of idiots with another lot of idiots (even if they seem a bit nicer).

I think it's time for me to disengage from following politics closely. I've...had enough of the lot of them.

-Ralph

[Cullen]

Surprised the unions are in favour of rich pensioners and not working people.

[that_bluestreak]

the reason that the winter fuel payment goes to all pensioners is because brown's lot considered it cheaper and easier to just give it to everyone than to find a way to means test it that means it goes to people who need it and no-one gets missed out.

personally i agree with means testing it, i dont see why dad should get it for example, but my mum should. i suspect now that neither of them will get it, which is not better than my dad getting it unfairly (even though he neither needs nor deserves it) because it leaves my mum struggling.

i am looking forward to being made to apply for jobs as a condition of getting disability benefit. that is being proposed and will not lead to anyone getting a job, just to more disabled people living in penury. in 2014 the un described "“grave
or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities" in the uk because of the welfare system, and its gotten exponentially worse since then. how can making it worse for people possibly be acceptable to these people?

[that_bluestreak]

Sept 25, 2024 15:03:06 GMT Cullen said:

Surprised the unions are in favour of rich pensioners and not working people.

also, most unions want their members to become rich pensioners

[legios]

One of the things that has been a recurring issue with means-testing in the past is that the costs of the bureaucracy that is involved in administering that process, handling appeals, and all of the other rigmarole involved in actually doing the means-testing tends to end up costing more than amount of money you save by not making a universal payment. Meaning that you end up having to find that extra money from somewhere else in the welfare budget which leads to something else being cut. Navigating that bureaucracy can also be difficult for the people who would most benefit from the payment, which leads to some of them missing out and being worse off.

So although the "feck it, we'll give everyone the same lump sum to keep the process simple" approach doesn't seem equitable at first glance, in practice it often produces better outcomes than a more targeted approach. It is counterintuitive, but means-testing as a method of targeting often produces a worse result _in practice_ than not doing so.

Is it "fair"? Dunno, not entirely that it is fair in principle. But in practice it may be unfair but still do more good than the alternative. So does one do the thing that produces the best outcome for the greatest number, whilst acknowledging that some people will benefit disproportionately as a result. Or do you do the thing that is fairer in principle and accept that their will be negative consequences to being absolutely sure that only "the deserving" benefit?

I dunno. I've been too close to the coalface of this in my life to feel certain of my answer.


Karl

[The Doctor]

The utilitatianism approach can be relevant when considering such debates:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Sept 26, 2024 17:04:59 GMT legios said:

So although the "feck it, we'll give everyone the same lump sum to keep the process simple" approach doesn't seem equitable at first glance, in practice it often produces better outcomes than a more targeted approach.

It can do, but giving a certain benefit to 'everyone' is different from giving it to 'everyone over a certain age'. Something's wrong e.g. if someone over 75 who is well off, didn't have to pay tuition fees, has a good pension and owns their own home automatically gets a free bus pass and free TV licence and a heating allowance when a younger person in work with student debts and dependents and no hope of getting on the property ladder doesn't.

Anyway, damn this evil government for making some missteps, and not finding a magic money tree, and not giving everyone what they think they are entitled to, and not making everything completely fair overnight while at the same time not crashing the economy again in their first few months in office.

Martin

[that_bluestreak]

That seems like quite a dramatic mis-representation of peoples concerns.