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

[Xann]

Pigs in pokes all around, thanks to the pig poker.

 

 

[peterms]

On 03/12/2018 at 01:07, snowychap said:

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.

Yes, they were.  My point was that the comments played into the unhelpful dialogue, not that this was his aim.

On 03/12/2018 at 01:07, snowychap said:

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.

I think it's probably the other way around - governments at the time showed a better practical understanding of the ideas that are now referred to as MMT (but which were around well before this fairly recent school of thought tried to revive them) than modern-day governments.  Their actions were far less constrained by this shibboleth of deficit and debt than we are today.  We have moved from the creation of the NHS at a time of enormous shortage of resources, to permitting big increases in deprivation when resources are far more abundant.

 

[snowychap]

38 minutes ago, peterms said:

Yes, they were.  My point was that the comments played into the unhelpful dialogue, not that this was his aim.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I completely agree but I understand where you're going with that.

Quote

I think it's probably the other way around - governments at the time showed a better practical understanding of the ideas that are now referred to as MMT (but which were around well before this fairly recent school of thought tried to revive them) than modern-day governments.  Their actions were far less constrained by this shibboleth of deficit and debt than we are today.  We have moved from the creation of the NHS at a time of enormous shortage of resources, to permitting big increases in deprivation when resources are far more abundant.

Hence the relevance of my question about the source (and thus the timing) of the quote as I thought that it was something he wrote (along with other things about charity and lots more) when he was forming his opinion not long after the first world war rather than after the second.

If these comments were made at that time rather than two decades later then I don't think it helps with your criticism of them to remove them from their appropriate context.

I really think you're getting overly fixated on deficit and debt, household v nation, &c. such that you're reading in to something said at a different time an issue which doesn't apply as much as you think or claim it does.

There are always constraints upon policy choices. The fundamental constraint isn't, I accept and agree, budget balancing but I don't think that this means one should move to the position that you take that it is therefore immaterial. There are many places in between and that can be down to how sovereign the currency is as well as other political and economic issues that may arise along a spectrum of opinions about governments' ins and outs.

I think you may have read in to the comment about taxation something which is arguable. It could just as much be that the 'pay ones taxes' line is about the implicit contract between the state and individuals as much as the money movement.

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

There are always constraints upon policy choices. The fundamental constraint isn't, I accept and agree, budget balancing but I don't think that this means one should move to the position that you take that it is therefore immaterial. There are many places in between and that can be down to how sovereign the currency is as well as other political and economic issues that may arise along a spectrum of opinions about governments' ins and outs.

I don't disagree with that, though I don't take the position that debt is always immaterial.  I didn't support independence in the Scottish referendum because it seemed likely the outcome would be taking on debt denominated in what would then be a foreign currency, while also not having a sovereign currency, which would be a disaster, creating a size and type of debt that would be a real problem.  But I do think that in the context of present-day UK, which is a very different situation, the arguments made against social welfare and state intervention on the grounds that they would involve "too much debt" are spurious, and are intended to mislead by playing on purposely created ignorance about the difference between a currency-issuing state and a household; and in that context and to that extent, and compared to historic levels of debt, yes, debt is pretty much immaterial, not the major constraint it is claimed to be.

[Chindie]

The M6, sponsored by Loctite.

Any excuse...

[snowychap]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

But I do think that in the context of present-day UK, which is a very different situation, the arguments made against social welfare and state intervention on the grounds that they would involve "too much debt" are spurious, and are intended to mislead by playing on purposely created ignorance about the difference between a currency-issuing state and a household

I agree.

That's why I didn't quote the second sentence when referencing Attlee's remarks.

[peterms]

Does he get a vote for each persona?

[snowychap]

NAO:

Quote

Handling of the Windrush situation

This study examines how the Home Office handled the impact of its immigration policies on the Windrush generation.

Background to the report

Between 1948 and 1973 many Commonwealth citizens came to the UK under successive pieces of immigration legislation. Some of these individuals, particularly those from Caribbean nations, have recently become known as the Windrush generation. The government amended existing immigration legislation with the Immigration Act 1971, which came into force in 1973. At this time, Commonwealth immigrants already settled in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain, but many were not issued with any documentation, and the Home Office (the Department) kept no records confirming these individuals’ status.

Over at least the past 10 years the government has further reformed immigration policies according to the principle that the right to live, work and access services in the UK should only be available to those migrants who are eligible. In the spring of 2018, the media began to report stories of people who had come to the UK from the Commonwealth, being denied access to public services, being detained in the UK or at the border, or removed from, or refused re-entry to, the UK. It was reported that some people did not have the paperwork to prove their legal right to reside in the UK. In April 2018, the government acknowledged that the Windrush generation had been treated unfairly and set up a taskforce and scheme to help individuals to resolve their immigration status.

 

Content and scope of the report

This report seeks: to increase transparency about what happened; and to establish whether problems with the Department’s information management and management of immigration casework may have contributed to the situation. We are not questioning the merits of the Department’s policy objectives. We examine:

• the scale and impact of the problem of people from the Windrush generation potentially being denied access to services, or detained or removed from the UK;
• whether the Department identified the potential for new legislation and policy to have adverse effects on the Windrush generation and others;
• whether its systems, guidance and processes contributed to negative outcomes, such as wrongful detention and removal;
• whether the quality of the Department’s information was a factor in people being wrongfully detained, removed or denied access to services;
• whether the Department had adequate feedback loops to identify any adverse or unintended consequences and responded appropriately to feedback; and
• how the Department is now supporting people who might have been affected, through the Windrush scheme.

 

Report conclusions

The policy of successive governments to create a hostile/compliant environment for illegal migrants involved limiting access to benefits and services and tightening enforcement activities. This included a ‘devolved approach’ placing a duty on landlords and employers and public service providers to carry out checks. This predictably carried a risk of impacting on individuals who were, in fact, entitled to residence, but who did not have the necessary documents.

The Department had a duty of care to ensure that people’s rights and entitlements were recognised and this has been re-emphasised by the Prime Minister. We do not consider that the Department adequately considered that duty in the way that it introduced immigration policy.

In its implementation of the policy with few checks and balances and targets for enforcement action, we do not consider, once again, that the Department adequately prioritised the protection of those who suffered distress and damage through being wrongly penalised, and to whom they owed a duty of care. Instead it operated a target‑driven environment for its enforcement teams. The clarity of briefing to the former Home Secretary on this issue has also been called into question.

It is clear that the Department received warnings of the fact that people, including in one case an employee of the House of Commons, were being wrongly caught up in the enforcement and compliant environment sanction regimes it was responsible for, but this did not have the effect of stimulating inquiry, or timely action.

The Department is now moving to identify affected individuals, and to compensate them. This is positive. However, it is still showing a lack of curiosity about individuals who may have been affected, and who are not of Caribbean heritage, on the basis that this would be a ‘disproportionate effort’. In the circumstances, we find this surprising. It is clear that the Department’s implementation of the policy, now resulting in a belated and costly exercise in seeking information and paying compensation, to say nothing of the reputational damage involved, was not value for money.

 

[peterms]

 

[peterms]

I've forced countless people into poverty and made them dependent on food banks.

Look how pleased I am with myself.

 

 

[chrisp65]

in fairness, that bag of sugar could be worth a **** fortune soon

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

I've forced countless people into poverty and made them dependent on food banks.

Look how pleased I am with myself.

It's quite an amazing campaign from CCHQ.

They've got loads of their MPs out there grinning like Cheshire cats in 'support' of foodbanks.

The gall of the ****.

[peterms]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

It's quite an amazing campaign from CCHQ.

They've got loads of their MPs out there grinning like Cheshire cats in 'support' of foodbanks.

The gall of the ****.

Each of these photos should include two figures:

- amount claimed by that MP for food in the last year

- amount of annual subsidy per MP for HoC catering facilities

That would help give some perspective on thier purported generosity.

[Xann]

9 hours ago, peterms said:

I've forced countless people into poverty and made them dependent on food banks.

Look how pleased I am with myself.

That f***ers murdered thousands of our own.

[Xann]

Quote

 

Brexiteer blasted over threat to starve Ireland

Politicians have attacked remarks by a Conservative MP and former cabinet minister that the threat of food shortages after a no-deal Brexit should be used to force the Irish government to relinquish its backstop guarantees.

Leaked British government papers have shown that Ireland will face shortages, particularly of perishable goods, and may take a a bigger economic hit than the UK from a no-deal Brexit.

 

Times

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

34 minutes ago, Xann said:

That f***ers murdered thousands of our own.

I think since the 80's the Tories and their policies have directly contributed to a few more deaths than 1000's.  A lot more than that IMO.

 

[peterms]

This is vicious, vindictive, wholly disproportionate, and unjust.

 

[peterms]

...and let's identify the collaborators

 

[peterms]

Like with foodbanks, they seem to think that a little photo-op can eclipse the truth of what they are doing.

 

[HanoiVillan]

Touchy.