The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[StefanAVFC]

Why is this a thing?

Why are they smiling about it?

Why the **** do normal people vote for these words removed?

URGGGGGGGH

[tonyh29]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Let's check in on everybody's favourite party, which is so much more important than the country. What have they been up to today? Well, breaking election law, and receiving a very serious penalty!

 

if you read the article it states " The Conservative Party was not investigated nor subject to any fine." 

so , lets check in with everybody's favourite non election law breaking and non fine receiving party  instead

 

[bickster]

7 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

if you read the article it states " The Conservative Party was not investigated nor subject to any fine." 

so , lets check in with everybody's favourite non election law breaking and non fine receiving party  instead

 

Plenty more worms in than can, this is just the start

[Chindie]

This government is a **** shambles.

They last night u-turned on amending their own offensive weapons bill to include assault rifles, because the ERG planned to rebel on it.

I mean... What?

[Chindie]

Another minister down, Sam Gyimah.

The general take appears to be this is an attempt at jumping from the sinking ship with the view that May is done for.

Little do they seem to understand May's incredible cockroach like ability to simply not die. They think she'll get an embarrassing defeat on the deal vote and fall afterwards. How little they understand. She'd sooner literally die. There'll be nail scratches all the way out the door of No.10 when we finally get her out.

[bickster]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

Another minister down, Sam Gyimah.

The general take appears to be this is an attempt at jumping from the sinking ship with the view that May is done for.

Little do they seem to understand May's incredible cockroach like ability to simply not die. They think she'll get an embarrassing defeat on the deal vote and fall afterwards. How little they understand. She'd sooner literally die. There'll be nail scratches all the way out the door of No.10 when we finally get her out.

Oh that’s Mr Anti- No Platform, a remainer, failed businessman and general filibustering cockwomble

I did have to look him up though. The only thing of note is that he's another remainer so May will fill the position with similar if she's true to form. I have doubts as to whether she'll find another Elmer Fudd at this stage though. I suspect the post will be unfilled for a while

[HanoiVillan]

Good riddance, terrible minister only interested in bullshit culture war trolling. 

[chrisp65]

Been an illuminating day today, seeing the number of tory MP's that can't see how disgusting they look getting PR photo's of themselves opening foodbanks, or donating value beans to foodbanks.

The total lack of self awareness or understanding of the misery they are responsible for.

 

[peterms]

As well as the entirely cynical, staged effort to make out this was some kind of spontaneous act of generosity, we have the slight problem that food banks are an affront, replacing rights and dignity with humiliating charity, doling out substandard food to people who have to debase themselves to get it.

Which is not to criticise the no doubt well-meaning people who run food banks, rather to say they are not the answer, should not exist, and need to be made redundant by a proper social security system.  Like we used to have.

[Chindie]

Food banks historically would fit right in with Tory thought. Individual charity is better than state intervention, remember.

Despite the fact the country tried it before and if didn't work...

[snowychap]

59 minutes ago, peterms said:

As well as the entirely cynical, staged effort to make out this was some kind of spontaneous act of generosity, we have the slight problem that food banks are an affront, replacing rights and dignity with humiliating charity, doling out substandard food to people who have to debase themselves to get it.

Which is not to criticise the no doubt well-meaning people who run food banks, rather to say they are not the answer, should not exist, and need to be made redundant by a proper social security system.  Like we used to have.

Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing.

Edited December 2, 2018 by snowychap
comma

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing.

Quite.

"Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim." - Clement Attlee

Attlee misses two important points.

First, we don't actually need the grudging or self-serving charity of the rich to pay for proper social security (yes, there are exceptions that are not grudging or self-serving , but they are, well, exceptional).

Second,  it's unhelpful to posit social security as dependent on getting the rich on board, either by persuading them to give to charidee or fencing off ways for them to dodge tax.  We can fund this regardless of the machinations of the rich, and we should do so.

But it's unseemly to criticise the architect of the welfare state,  so I don't want to make too much of those points.

 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Attlee misses two important points.

Rubbish.

The points you make may be worth discussing, they are not necessarily 'missed'.

 

 

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Rubbish.

The points you make may be worth discussing, they are not necessarily 'missed'.

 

 

They were missed.  The political dialogue of the post war period seemed to be framed by what could be afforded, even while they were forging ahead with initiatives which the accountants would say couldn't be afforded.  I suppose that's not surprising,  in the context of severe material constraints, but it confuses what we can do with what we can "pay for".  Another confusion of the household with the nation.

Attlee's remark seems to reinforce that paradigm, by suggesting that the way to help the poor is to get the rich to pay their tax.  Since it undermines his case in a very far-reaching way, and we are still paying the price for that, the notion that he missed it rather than deliberately ignored it, is reasonable.

[snowychap]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

They were missed.  The political dialogue of the post war period seemed to be framed by what could be afforded, even while they were forging ahead with initiatives which the accountants would say couldn't be afforded.  I suppose that's not surprising,  in the context of severe material constraints, but it confuses what we can do with what we can "pay for".  Another confusion of the household with the nation.

Attlee's remark seems to reinforce that paradigm, by suggesting that the way to help the poor is to get the rich to pay their tax.  Since it undermines his case in a very far-reaching way, and we are still paying the price for that, the notion that he missed it rather than deliberately ignored it, is reasonable.

Edit:

On rereading, my comments about bollocks and not having the energy were harsh and wrong.

Edited December 3, 2018 by snowychap

[snowychap]

 

11 hours ago, peterms said:

First, we don't actually need the grudging or self-serving charity of the rich to pay for proper social security (yes, there are exceptions that are not grudging or self-serving , but they are, well, exceptional).

Attlee's comment was that rather than doling out charity on a whim, the rich man (and by implication all) should pay his/their taxes which ought then to cover social security amongst other things as part of government expenditure.

11 hours ago, peterms said:

Second,  it's unhelpful to posit social security as dependent on getting the rich on board, either by persuading them to give to charidee or fencing off ways for them to dodge tax.  We can fund this regardless of the machinations of the rich, and we should do so.

He didn't posit it as dependent upon the rich getting on board. His comments were aimed at the whimsical and capricious nature of charity.

It's rather poor to decry someone from the early/mid 20th century because they don't subsribe to MMT.

Edit: Or that they're perhaps understanding that there are political costs for actions taken by government as well as fiscal ones.

Edited December 3, 2018 by snowychap
Edited a couple of things.

[snowychap]

10 hours ago, peterms said:

The political dialogue of the post war period

Is this quote not from his book The Social Worker?

[meregreen]

If people were paid decent levels of pay and or benefits, there would be precious little “charity” needed. If Corbyn gets Labour back into power, I hope one of the first things he does is reempower the Union movement . Many of the problems that people face today date back to the emasculation of workers rights inflicted by the Tories in the 80’s. People need to regain the ability to improve their lot through their ability to fight back both individually but more especially collectively. The sense that ordinary people are powerless to positively improve their lot in life is one of our greatest challenges and needs to be confronted.

[HanoiVillan]

The BBC's new advice on how to refer to various thinktanks makes it absolutely clear that this is no unconscious bias, but a deliberate campaign to privilege right-wing thinktanks that refuse to identify their donor sources IMO:

I don't see what possible good-faith interpretation can be left. 

[OutByEaster?]

So if the speaker says that the contempt of parliament is worth discussing, does this put May in trouble?