Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

I know that when I think of dignity at work, I think of anti-suicide nets being put up around my workplace.

At least the words Jeremy Hunt can now take their rightful place as rhyming slang.

 

[Walshicus]

remember how it was kind of dream of the people who established the postwar consensus that by the year 2000 people would only have to work a 3 day week? now it seems like working anything less than 60 hours a week is considered morally repugnant.

That's because Toffs and Bankers have appropriated the greater chunk of the rewards increased technology have brought us.

And yes, it fucking turns my stomach when politicians use China as a standard to measure against.

 

[Uzzy]

He said that under Conservative philosophy how you earned money was as important as how much you earned - and not having to rely on state handouts promoted "dignity" and "independence".

So, no more corporate welfare, no more bailouts, hedge fund managers getting taxed at proper rates and stopping inheritance? We've got to earn money the right way, and keep our dignity and independence after all! Surely that applies to the mega-rich and megacorps too?

 

[PJV3]

Ah well, they said they wanted to address the productivity problem in the UK.

 

[RedShift]

I know that when I think of dignity at work, I think of anti-suicide nets being put up around my workplace.

At least the words Jeremy Hunt can now take their rightful place as rhyming slang.

Poor James Blunt, that used to be his thing.

 

[phisheep]

Regardless of whatever you think her intention is, it's pretty much an undeniable fact that 'free markets' have done the most damage to our environments and it's only government regulation that has the hope of any kind of change to that. It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme to propose that it's not capital and the pursuit of profit that has done most environmental damage worldwide.

That's not to deny, of course, that it has also been pretty powerful in raising the living standards of many people in the world. Those two things often go hand in hand; a point that Jarrod Diamond has made several times in his writing.

I think there's a fairly strong case to made that is industrialisation (whether or not fuelled by free market capitalism) that has done the environmental damage. There's not a huge difference between say Henry VIII's destruction of the forests in pursuit of a Navy, and Russia's massive and inept industrialisation in pursuit of warmongery and whatever the free markets have been up to. So, whether it is under a monarchy or communism or free-market capitalism there's a lot of destruction done. Probably if you dig around enough there are similar examples in other sorts of systems too.

To blame it all on free market capitalism seems to me a bit of a stretch.

That said, I'm wholly in favour of regulation of the free market in all sorts of ways - because people cheat, because people discount the cost of "free" goods like forests, water, air, infrastructure, fish etc etc etc, and because also of the huge geographical imbalances that spring up (whether between London and Wigan, or between the US east coast and midwest, or between Europe and Africa or whatever).

 

[CyclopsRock]

The reason there are so (relatively) few old Oak trees in the UK is because they were all cut down to make the enormous masts required for our trans-Atlantic colonial escapades. We ended up having to chop down a ton of ancient trees from New England (they're all gone now, too) when we basically ran out of appropriate ones here.

 

[PJV3]

The original statement was meaningless twaddle for a party conference. There are tribes in the deepest amazon with nothing that care about and look after their environment.

Phisheep is right that any system that doesn't value something will not care for it or willfully damage it, the USSR were experts at it just like the British during the industrial revolution . Any progress on social or environmental issues are because of activists and disasters, not markets, it's just sometimes there's a profit in it.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Jeremy Hunt and George Osborne represent this lizardman like evil that it is actually terrifying to see in power and government. The shit they have been saying this week is bone chilling.

All while Corbyn is fucking it all up already. Feels bad man

 

[twobear]

The reason there are so (relatively) few old Oak trees in the UK is because they were all cut down to make the enormous masts required for our trans-Atlantic colonial escapades. We ended up having to chop down a ton of ancient trees from New England (they're all gone now, too) when we basically ran out of appropriate ones here.

And...what were the colonies for, exactly?

 

[Moosichu]

Jeremy Hunt and George Osborne represent this lizardman like evil that it is actually terrifying to see in power and government. The shit they have been saying this week is bone chilling.

All while Corbyn is fucking it all up already. Feels bad man

In what ways do you believe he is fucking up? On policy or public image?

 

[CyclopsRock]

And...what were the colonies for, exactly?

Hmm, so now the Royal Navy executing the will of the state to colonise other lands is an example of the free market at work? Mercantilism is defined by the central role that the government plays in the nations commercial activities, using them as tools to one-up other countries. I don't see how this setups lust for tall trees and indifference to deforestation in their attempts to obtain it can be laid at the feet of FA Hayek.

 

[ruttyboy]

Hmm, so now the Royal Navy executing the will of the state to colonise other lands is an example of the free market at work? Mercantilism is defined by the central role that the government plays in the nations commercial activities, using them as tools to one-up other countries. I don't see how this setups lust for tall trees and indifference to deforestation in their attempts to obtain it can be laid at the feet of FA Hayek.

As far as I know the British Empire was built primarily by private individuals using their own money as a speculative gesture. It was only after the deed was done that the state assumed de facto responsibility/ownership.

 

[tomtom94]

In interesting news, the European Court of Justice looks to be upholding the prisoner voting ban and the new restrictions on immigrants coming in and claiming benefits:

Convicted murderer Thierry Delvigne claimed a ban on him voting in elections in France violated the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. But the court ruled his ban was "proportionate" to the offence.

If the court had ruled the other way it could have outlawed all bans on prisoner voting, including the UK's. The UK's ban on prisoners' rights to vote looks set to continue following the ruling.

The European Court of Justice says the government is entitled to put additional restrictions on EU migrants seeking to claim child benefit and child tax credits in the UK. An opinion from the court this morning says that while the rules constitute indirect discrimination, "it is justified by the necessity of protecting the host member state's public finances."

The rules require EU migrants to show they have the "right to reside" in the UK before they can claim the benefits. The European Commission argued such a rule constituted "direct discrimination" as the law didn't apply to UK citizens. Today's opinion from the advocate general is not a full judgement - that'll appear in the coming months - but such opinions are usually followed by the court.

I wonder what that means for the EU referendum and renegotiations? People tend to be okay with the EU courts as long as they do what they want, don't they?

Also, Boris has attacked the tax cuts, so I guess it really is between him and Osborne for the leadership... and I can't believe I'm saying this but I think I want Osborne.

 

[War Peaceman]

Hmm, so now the Royal Navy executing the will of the state to colonise other lands is an example of the free market at work? Mercantilism is defined by the central role that the government plays in the nations commercial activities, using them as tools to one-up other countries. I don't see how this setups lust for tall trees and indifference to deforestation in their attempts to obtain it can be laid at the feet of FA Hayek.

As far as I know the British Empire was built primarily by private individuals using their own money as a speculative gesture. It was only after the deed was done that the state assumed de facto responsibility/ownership.

It is a bit of both and varies depending on the specific region and company. MTCs in particular were privately-funded, publicly-protected institutions (though this changes wildly across the years).

Also you underrate the dedication the mercantilists had towards free trade and capitalism. If you actually read mercantilists texts they rant on about liberty and freedom and so on. Much as people (Smith in particular) try to separate mercantilists from free traders they are arguing degrees of government involvement, not altogether opposite systems. I think Cyclops is closer to the truth as I see it, anyway.

Source - me (I am a researcher in colonial economics )

That said, I don't think saying colonies are explicitly capitalism at work. It is more nuanced than that. It was about statescraft, exploration and (especially) later, capitalism.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay, which basically gave Royal decree to the colony in New England in the 17th Century, had a clause in it that basically shotgunned the tallest trees there for the Royal Navy (specifically the Royal Navy, not just "shipbuilding"), for example. Obviously there was an element of enterprise in colonialism but almost all of it was done either as a directive from the state or, at least, under the cloak of the Navy (primarily)'s protection.

It's also worth remembering that free markets are meant to be considered within a legal framework and set of rights enshrined by the state, not some sort of mad max scenario. Me killing Chief Thunderclump for his gold trinkets is not an example of a "free market".

 

[War Peaceman]

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay, which basically gave Royal decree to the colony in New England in the 17th Century, had a clause in it that basically shotgunned the tallest trees there for the Royal Navy (specifically the Royal Navy, not just "shipbuilding"), for example. Obviously there was an element of enterprise in colonialism but almost all of it was done either as a directive from the state or, at least, under the cloak of the Navy (primarily)'s protection.

It's also worth remembering that free markets are meant to be considered within a legal framework and set of rights enshrined by the state, not some sort of mad max scenario. Me killing Chief Thunderclump for his gold trinkets is not an example of a "free market".

It was more the hypothetical threat of the navy - (particularly developed under later navigation acts) the idea that attacking colonists constituted an attack on the sovereign state.

And actually the majority of the actual colonists and shareholders were private financiers. After the first 30 years where it was 60:40 gents: capitalists, the HBC became almost entirely city-banker funded. Don't underestimate the capitalist drive. On the other hand the mechanisms of international trade and the economies were so fragile that the backing (usually implicit or theoretical) of a sovereign state was required for sound footing.

 

[Moosichu]

What do people think about prisoners voting rights? I think everyone should have the right to vote in the country they live but I was interested in hearing arguments for/against letting prisoners vote.

 

[Coriolanus]

What do people think about prisoners voting rights? I think everyone should have the right to vote in the country they live but I was interested in hearing arguments for/against letting prisoners vote.

If you don't let them vote, there's even less incentive to improve prisons.
Plus all that bit about allowing them to practice some civic duties as a path to rehabilitation and all.

 

[PJV3]

What do people think about prisoners voting rights? I think everyone should have the right to vote in the country they live but I was interested in hearing arguments for/against letting prisoners vote.

If you're being released within a few years of an election you should get the vote. I don't know why it became such an issue, they could make it a part of rehabilitation, take a test on the manifestos etc.

 

[phisheep]

What do people think about prisoners voting rights? I think everyone should have the right to vote in the country they live but I was interested in hearing arguments for/against letting prisoners vote.

I am entirely in favour of prisoners having the vote. After all for them, much more than for the rest of us, the government gets to control and interfere in their daily lives.

However, I'm sensitive to the objection that a prison in a constituency could swing the constituency vote - so would prefer that HM prisons formed a separate constituency altogether. The prison population is about the size of a biggish constituency anyway.

Of course, the usual questions at a constituency selection meeting may not apply. "Are you planning to live in the constituency?" would be an odd one for sure.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

However, I'm sensitive to the objection that a prison in a constituency could swing the constituency vote - so would prefer that HM prisons formed a separate constituency altogether. The prison population is about the size of a biggish constituency anyway.

That would be quite interesting actually.

It would give prisoner rehabilitation measures & prison reform a permanent advocate in the house of commons.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm all for prisoners voting. I don't see why their breaking the law should mean they don't get a say on what the laws are. I also don't really see a problem with them potentially distorting the results - I doubt many will actually vote and who cares if it does anyway? - but if that's a chief concern then maybe just have them vote in their last known address constituency, sort of like uni students who still vote at home because they haven't registered at their new address.

That would be quite interesting actually.

It would give prisoner rehabilitation measures & prison reform a permanent advocate in the house of commons.

Wonder what his or her surgery times would be?

 

[Moosichu]

I am entirely in favour of prisoners having the vote. After all for them, much more than for the rest of us, the government gets to control and interfere in their daily lives.

However, I'm sensitive to the objection that a prison in a constituency could swing the constituency vote - so would prefer that HM prisons formed a separate constituency altogether. The prison population is about the size of a biggish constituency anyway.

Of course, the usual questions at a constituency selection meeting may not apply. "Are you planning to live in the constituency?" would be an odd one for sure.

That is a really good idea. Would it be a good or bad idea to let a prisoner would be able to stand as an MP in this scenario?

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

That is a really good idea. Would it be a good or bad idea to let a prisoner would be able to stand as an MP in this scenario?

bad idea imo, you'd get people standing just for getting time outside.

 

[kmag]

That would be quite interesting actually.

It would give prisoner rehabilitation measures & prison reform a permanent advocate in the house of commons.

Would the right honourable member for SCUM please stand

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Would the right honourable member for SCUM please stand

lol

the mp would also be able to make statements to dodgy mp's such as "I hear the right honourable member for smegsly-north will soon be moving to my constituency, where I am sure the right honourable member will find a warm welcome."

 

[Mindwipe]

I'm all for prisoners voting. I don't see why their breaking the law should mean they don't get a say on what the laws are.

Yup. I know it happened very rarely in practice, but I think it's unbelievably stupid that there's such public hostility to it in scenarios like an objector being sent to prison for not paying the Poll Tax losing their ability to vote against the law in question.

It's not like there are enough prisoners where it would make much of a difference.

 

[Mindwipe]

Theresa May badly misjudging the mood I think. When she has the Telegraph laying in to her something has gone wrong.

I've got people on Facebook thinking she's deliberately setting Boris up by making him look reasonable, but I can't see her being willing to settle for that already, nor anyone doing pacts before the likely winner gets more obvious.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

If the tory party have many more conferences as bad as this one, Corbyn might actually be in with a shot

 

[phisheep]

That is a really good idea. Would it be a good or bad idea to let a prisoner would be able to stand as an MP in this scenario?

I'm not sure a serving prisoner would make a good candidate. For starters they'd have severe difficulty actually doing the job were they elected. Plenty of ex-prisoners who could do the job though.

 

[tomtom94]

While I like the idea of a "prisoner's constituency", I have the fear that nobody would want to stand there.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Could they not vote for the constituency in which they lived before being imprisoned?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm kind of a spacktard so I'd appreciate someone explaining the - probably entirely logical - reason why the European Court of Justice have allowed the French ban on prisoner voting and the European Court of Human Rights have stated ours is unlawful. I mean, I understand the reason why the ECJ came to the decision it did is due to "proportionality" but it's not so much the actual rulings that confuse me, but rather why we actually have two separate, distinct courts ruling on the same issue.

 

[War Peaceman]

I can see why people would oppose prisoners not receiving the vote, but I feel that they should if they could be released in the parliamentary session that is being elected for. If not, I can see the logic in them not having it.

 

[tomtom94]

I'm kind of a spacktard so I'd appreciate someone explaining the - probably entirely logical - reason why the European Court of Justice have allowed the French ban on prisoner voting and the European Court of Human Rights have stated ours is unlawful. I mean, I understand the reason why the ECJ came to the decision it did is due to "proportionality" but it's not so much the actual rulings that confuse me, but rather why we actually have two separate, distinct courts ruling on the same issue.

I once had someone explain this to me - I think the issue with our ban on prisoners is less a human rights issue and more an issue of sovereignty; the European Court of Justice are okay with bans on prisoners voting but they don't like the way we do it.

 

[phisheep]

While I like the idea of a "prisoner's constituency", I have the fear that nobody would want to stand there.

There's any number of prison reform charities, visitors' associations, and independent reformers who would leap at the opportunity of a voice in Parliament, not to mention ex prisoners and of course the usual chancers who would stand for anything. I doubt that the main political parties would field candidates, but there would be no shortage of others.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

I'm kind of a spacktard so I'd appreciate someone explaining the - probably entirely logical - reason why the European Court of Justice have allowed the French ban on prisoner voting and the European Court of Human Rights have stated ours is unlawful. I mean, I understand the reason why the ECJ came to the decision it did is due to "proportionality" but it's not so much the actual rulings that confuse me, but rather why we actually have two separate, distinct courts ruling on the same issue.

My assumption would be that the ECJ looks at it from an EU nation/union law point of view and the ECHR look at it from a personal human rights point of view

I think there was some talk about a possible merger of the two after the ECJ said no to the EU as an entity being liable to ECHR decisions (it is not right now as it is not a member of the council of europe), but it's all a bit too technical for me to fully get my head around.

 

[twobear]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/06/daily-telegraph-jeremy-corbyn-antisemite-ipso

Daily Telegraph censured over Jeremy Corbyn 'antisemite' story

Press regulator Ipso orders paper to run prominent correction after it ‘distorted’ comments made by a prominent Labour MP in a front-page story

wow, misrepresentation from the telegraph? i for one am shocked.

 

[Maledict]

Everyone was worried about Murdochs influence on the press, the Times in particular, and actually its the Telegraph that's turned into the biggest pile of wank out there. It seems to be competing with the Daily Mail for readers now - some of their "journalism" is shockingly bad.

 

[Uzzy]

I am entirely in favour of prisoners having the vote. After all for them, much more than for the rest of us, the government gets to control and interfere in their daily lives.

However, I'm sensitive to the objection that a prison in a constituency could swing the constituency vote - so would prefer that HM prisons formed a separate constituency altogether. The prison population is about the size of a biggish constituency anyway.

Of course, the usual questions at a constituency selection meeting may not apply. "Are you planning to live in the constituency?" would be an odd one for sure.

Why a prison constituency and not, lets say, a student constituency, or a soldiers constituency, or any other number of groups which contain a large number of people who have to move from their homes for employment or education?

 

[phisheep]

I'm kind of a spacktard so I'd appreciate someone explaining the - probably entirely logical - reason why the European Court of Justice have allowed the French ban on prisoner voting and the European Court of Human Rights have stated ours is unlawful. I mean, I understand the reason why the ECJ came to the decision it did is due to "proportionality" but it's not so much the actual rulings that confuse me, but rather why we actually have two separate, distinct courts ruling on the same issue.

So far as I can work it out the French ban is OK because it is not indiscriminate, it takes account, amongst other things, of the length of the sentence and the severity of the offence.

In contrast, the UK ban is a blanket ban, no prisoner can vote at all. That's held by the ECHR to be more than is necessary in a democratic society to achieve whatever legitimate end it is aimed at, which is understandable.

I think the ECJ is ruling using the same law (I guess the case was taken to ECJ because it is about EU elections?) and the ECHR would almost certainly rule the same if the same case came to them.

It isn't unusual to have different courts ruling on the same law - after all the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court here regularly rule on Convention Rights (as do the lower courts).

Why a prison constituency and not, lets say, a student constituency, or a soldiers constituency, or any other number of groups which contain a large number of people who have to move from their homes for employment or education?

Because all those people have the vote already and nobody seems worried about it. (We used to have MPs for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but they vanished in the 50s I think.)

 

[Moosichu]

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/651461301466611712

David Cameron on Ali Mohammed al-Nimr.

 

[Uzzy]

Because all those people have the vote already and nobody seems worried about it. (We used to have MPs for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but they vanished in the 50s I think.)

So give prisoners the vote. I don't see why they would need their own constituency to represent them.

 

[Moosichu]

So give prisoners the vote. I don't see why they would need their own constituency to represent them.

It wouldn't be needed. It was just an idea that phisheep suggested and was being discussed. Either is better than them not having the vote under all circumstances IMO.

 

[War Peaceman]

Because all those people have the vote already and nobody seems worried about it. (We used to have MPs for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but they vanished in the 50s I think.)

Yeah there were many more than just Oxbridge. Ireland still has some I think! They were ripe for abuse IIRC.

 

[Volotaire]

Norman Smith twitter:

And now Cameron hails Boris Johnson: "I want to single someone out.He’s served this country...And there’s a huge amount more to come" #CPC15

 

[mr-paul]

I really can't take anything that David Cameron says about social mobility/aspiration seriously.

 

[FlammableD]

Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names?
...
That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful.
...
Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a British Muslim if he walks down the street and is abused for his faith.

TWO MINUTES LATER

tear up the narrative that says Muslims are persecuted

 

[QuicheFontaine]

TWO MINUTES LATER

Was he talking about muslims in Pakistan in that second one?