Support NeoGAF

[CCS]

Like, if the Government doesn't want an unelected house to stop them passing legislation, why not reform parliament instead of just whining about it?

 

[tomtom94]

The local takeaway where Osborne and Cameron's spin doctors live just punched the air in joy. That's going to be a late one.

 

[War Peaceman]

Like, if the Government doesn't want an unelected house to stop them passing legislation, why not reform parliament instead of just whining about it?

I bet Corbyn would like to help them with that.

 

[Jezbollah]

The local takeaway where Osborne and Cameron's spin doctors live just punched the air in joy. That's going to be a late one.

yeeaaaahh. It's already starting to kick off.

 

[tomtom94]

"House of Lords out of touch with people, claim wealthy Etonians" has a good ring to it.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

You know you are an absolute cunt when you have a collective worth of £650 million quid yet you fly back to the UK from New York just to vote FOR the cuts to tax credits even though you have been a Lord for 14 years and have only ever voted 30 times in those 14 years.

Good old Andrew Lloyd Webber what an upstanding citizen.

 

[MrChom]

I bet Corbyn would like to help them with that.

The sooner the upper house is mostly elected and partially appointed the better. THe only reason I suggest still appointing is due to those people who are useful to have in the Upper House due to their knowledge or experience who would be unlikely to be elected through normal channels. It would also give us access to a core of people not dependent on an electorate to keep them there...I don't think they should be life peers like the current lot, though, maybe an 8 year term or similar....

 

[tomtom94]

Official - government have launched a review into the workings of parliament, specifically the powers of the House of Lords.

Led by former Lords leader Lord Strathclyde, who is a Conservative.

"The House of Lords has an important job as a chamber that says 'have you thought about this' or raises concerns and there were opportunities for the House of Lords to do that yesterday.
"They didn't take those opportunities. What they did was they blocked a financial matter. They haven't done that for 100 years and it does raise constitutional issues."

The spin is real.

 

[War Peaceman]

The sooner the upper house is mostly elected and partially appointed the better. THe only reason I suggest still appointing is due to those people who are useful to have in the Upper House due to their knowledge or experience who would be unlikely to be elected through normal channels. It would also give us access to a core of people not dependent on an electorate to keep them there...I don't think they should be life peers like the current lot, though, maybe an 8 year term or similar....

I haven't given it much thought but I wouldn't mind if it was appointed but with term limits (off the top of my head, 3 parliaments, assuming 5 year fixed term parliament act) and a maximum number of appointments per parliamentary session (excluding deaths) that is worked out proportionally between each party according to percentage of the vote. Or something like that, there's probably loads of holes and flaws with that idea!

Regardless, people who don't attend the Lords on a regular basis - let's say, 2/3 of votes - should have their privileges stripped of them. That Lloyd Webber (only hyphenated when said as a title, the twat) has only voted 1.6% of the time is unacceptable.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Regardless, people who don't attend the Lords on a regular basis - let's say, 2/3 of votes - should have their privileges stripped of them. That Lloyd Webber (only hyphenated when said as a title, the twat) has only voted 1.6% of the time is unacceptable.

But who gives a shit? Or, rather, who benefits if Lloyd Webber votes on a bunch of stuff he doesn't care about?

 

[anonymous_abc]

But who gives a shit? Or, rather, who benefits if Lloyd Webber votes on a bunch of stuff he doesn't care about?

Maybe he shouldn't be a peer then.
Not to say every parliamentarian or peer should vote 100% of the time. But I dunno 1.6% does seem awfully low for someone who should at least take a passing interest in politics and the course of a country.

 

[War Peaceman]

But who gives a shit? Or, rather, who benefits if Lloyd Webber votes on a bunch of stuff he doesn't care about?

Because there are many benefits to being a Lord and he is basically abusing it by not performing part of the function of the role.

He doesn't need a peerage, after all.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Maybe he shouldn't be a peer then.
Not to say every parliamentarian or peer should vote 100% of the time. But I dunno 1.6% does seem awfully low for someone who should at least take a passing interest in politics and the course of a country.

Because there are many benefits to being a Lord and he is basically abusing it by not performing part of the function of the role.

He doesn't need a peerage, after all.

I dunno guys, I don't think either of these actually answer the question. There's no whip up there *really* and IMO it's better that parliamentarians only vote on things they care about. Commons MPs can't do that because they're there to represent their constituents who might care about the issue even if the MP does (unless they're Gordon Brown). But Lords? Again, who benefits by them voting for stuff just because?

 

[anonymous_abc]

I dunno guys, I don't think either of these actually answer the question. There's no whip up there *really* and IMO it's better that parliamentarians only vote on things they care about. Commons MPs can't do that because they're there to represent their constituents who might care about the issue even if the MP does (unless they're Gordon Brown). But Lords? Again, who benefits by them voting for stuff just because?

They shouldn't just because, but they should obviously show more interest in all manner of matters at hand.

Anyway why am I defending the HoL? Get rid of the entire thing please!

 

[tomtom94]

I dunno guys, I don't think either of these actually answer the question. There's no whip up there *really* and IMO it's better that parliamentarians only vote on things they care about. Commons MPs can't do that because they're there to represent their constituents who might care about the issue even if the MP does (unless they're Gordon Brown). But Lords? Again, who benefits by them voting for stuff just because?

I think you're missing the point - no-one is saying the Lords should have to vote, only that people who take the piss and only show up once in a blue moon probably don't deserve the privilege.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They shouldn't just because, but they should obviously show more interest in all manner of matters at hand.

Anyway why am I defending the HoL? Get rid of the entire thing please!

I think you're missing the point - no-one is saying the Lords should have to vote, only that people who take the piss and only show up once in a blue moon probably don't deserve the privilege.

But why? There's no inherent virtue to them voting. They aren't representing anyone. In the context of a system where people are parachuted in with no elections, why is person A who votes 80% of the time somehow better than person B that votes 1% of the time?

With the HoC, you can easily answer the question of "why". With the HoL I don't think you can, which is why I don't care if they someone doesn't vote for 10 years. It's not like they're taking someone else's place.

 

[Moosichu]

But why? There's no inherent virtue to them voting. They aren't representing anyone. In the context of a system where people are parachuted in with no elections, why is person A who votes 80% of the time somehow better than person B that votes 1% of the time?

With the HoC, you can easily answer the question of "why". With the HoL I don't think you can, which is why I don't care if they someone doesn't vote for 10 years. It's not like they're taking someone else's place.

Yes, but then why are they even a Lord?
With all the benefits that brings.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

But why? There's no inherent virtue to them voting. They aren't representing anyone. In the context of a system where people are parachuted in with no elections, why is person A who votes 80% of the time somehow better than person B that votes 1% of the time?

With the HoC, you can easily answer the question of "why". With the HoL I don't think you can, which is why I don't care if they someone doesn't vote for 10 years. It's not like they're taking someone else's place.

Because if you are given the ability to vote on things which affect the lives of millions of people then being 99% apathetic shouldn't really be an option available to you.

 

[CCS]

I'm going to apply for a job in the Treasury for next year. This could be interesting...

 

[tomtom94]

I'm going to apply for a job in the Treasury for next year. This could be interesting...

Is it too late for me to join Cameron in Iceland?

Speaking of which, in amusing spin of the day, Cameron is arguing that we are better off in the EU for migration than out:

Norway takes in "over twice as many EU migrants per head as the UK" but unlike Britain it has "no votes and negligible say" over the rules.
The source said: "So how would becoming like Norway in anyway help addressing public concerns over EU migration?"

And a wonderful quote from IDS:

"I am trialling at the moment a job adviser situating themselves in the food bank for the time that the food bank is open and we are already getting very strong feedback about that," he said.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

And a wonderful quote from IDS:

The sooner this cunt gets stabbed in the neck, the better.

 

[Wrestlemania]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus?CMP=twt_gu

What is the counterargument to this?

 

[Mr Git]

You know you are an absolute cunt when you have a collective worth of £650 million quid yet you fly back to the UK from New York just to vote FOR the cuts to tax credits even though you have been a Lord for 14 years and have only ever voted 30 times in those 14 years.

Good old Andrew Lloyd Webber what an upstanding citizen.

I can't ever shake what Dennis Pennis said to him.

"Sir Andrew, quick question from the BBC. Is it correct that recently you've been writing sheets and sheets of music and then erasing them and rubbing them out?"

"[bemused] No."

"Oh, because, if you don't mind me saying, I heard you were decomposing these days."

 

[CharmingCharlie]

"I am trialling at the moment a job adviser situating themselves in the food bank for the time that the food bank is open and we are already getting very strong feedback about that,"

Wonder how long it will be before these "Job Advisers" are sanctioning people that use a food bank ? I can see it now "wait a minute you are queuing for hours to get a tin of cold bake beans when you should be looking for work ? Well it is a sanction for you mi' laddie you are banned from all food banks for a period no shorter than 3 years, that will provide plenty of incentive for you to get a job you lazy layabout scrounger".

Obviously that is tongue in the cheek humour that knowing the way this country runs will become a bloody reality in 6 months time.

I can't ever shake what Dennis Pennis said to him.

I think what is even more disgusting about Andrew Lloyd webbedtoe is that he is a big fan of giving subsidies to the arts. So he is perfectly fine with a pass time for the rich to get huge government subsidies (of course he is it's how he gets his money) yet when it comes to the poor sod on the street trying to earn money for a crust of bread it's "oh we shouldn't be subsidising blah blah".

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus?CMP=twt_gu

What is the counterargument to this?

'Labour dun it'.

 

[Jezbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus?CMP=twt_gu

What is the counterargument to this?

The counterargument will be easy. They'll take a look at the authors background and where the column was published. The combination of which is easily dismiss-able.

 

[Moosichu]

The counterargument will be easy. They'll take a look at the authors background and where the column was published. The combination of which is easily dismiss-able.

What's the counterargument? I'm genuinely interested. His background seems to be a history of activism on this stuff, but if that's not some kind of contradiction.

 

[Jezbollah]

What's the counterargument? I'm genuinely interested. His background seems to be a history of activism on this stuff, but if that's not some kind of contradiction.

I'd like to know as well, but the cynic in me thinks that those who need to put forth a response would rather discredit the article rather than address it.

 

[Wrestlemania]

The counterargument will be easy. They'll take a look at the authors background and where the column was published. The combination of which is easily dismiss-able.

Seriously though, what is it? If economically literate people are backing the Conservatives, they must have a solid argument for why this is wrong, right?

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-economic-growth-budgetary-surplus?CMP=twt_gu

What is the counterargument to this?

HOUSEHOLD BUDGET. LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS. ECONOMIC SECURITY.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Seriously though, what is it? If economically literate people are backing the Conservatives, they must have a solid argument for why this is wrong, right?

The argument against what, though? I mean, of course the graph is symetrical - there are two options and it's a graph depicting the share of 100% - it's literally impossible for it to be anything other than 100%. That doesn't mean that the absolute values are symetrical - that one going up means the other goes down. His metaphor with Peter and Paul and the Poker Chips is misleading - there will only ever be 40 chips, so Peter having more means Paul has less. That's obviously not the case in a country where the government has de facto control over a fiat currency. They could decide to borrow an extra £50bn tomorrow for, say, a handful of nuclear submarines and the government's share of the balance on that graph would go up. That doesn't mean any one of us have lost money. Furthermore, he's thinking in 3D, not 4D (ugh!) - he says that when we run a surplus, we're taking in more money than we are spending and "that money has to come from somewhere" - well yeah; the past. We already borrowed a ton. To pay it back we have only 2 options, really - one's to run a surplus, and the other's to inflate the debt away. But inflation obviously has its own set of problem. We already had the benefit of that deficit spending for the last ~20 years or so, give or take a couple in the early 2000s. That's where the money came from.

But I guess someone needs to send up the Crab signal.

 

[phisheep]

Seriously though, what is it? If economically literate people are backing the Conservatives, they must have a solid argument for why this is wrong, right?

It's just a bad argument, perhaps best exemplified by this line from para 3 in the report:

If the government reduces its debt, everyone else has to go into debt in exactly that proportion in order to balance their own budgets.

That's just false, because it (perhaps deliberately) conflates net private sector debt - which is what shows in the graphs - with aggregate private sector debt.

If I borrow money from my bank, then I'm in debt. But the net effect on private sector debt vis-a-vis the government is precisely zero because my debt to the bank is offset by the bank's lending to me, both of which are wholly in the private sector. This has nothing whatever to do with whether the government is running a deficit or a surplus.

Of course, it is arguable that if the government reduces its debt then the people who were lending to the government might instead lend their money elsewhere, but that is scarcely forcing people to borrow from them - and it might well be a a benefit to society in freeing up funds for investment in the private sector.

 

[War Peaceman]

The counterargument will be easy. They'll take a look at the authors background and where the column was published. The combination of which is easily dismiss-able.

Yes, he is a quite excellent anthropologist but he is not an economist. That doesn't mean he is right or wrong but it means we should take his views with a huge amount of salt.

 

[Jezbollah]

Chilcot Enquiry report not now expected until the middle of next year. What bollocks.

 

[PJV3]

Chilcot Enquiry report not now expected until the middle of next year. What bollocks.

It's two million words long though, it's longer than Artamène ou le Grand Cyrus.

 

[Visualante2]

It's two million words long though, it's longer than Artamène ou le Grand Cyrus.

Hard to take the word count serious when it probably includes years of e.mails, piles of evidence that is loosely related but included for posterity.

 

[Moosichu]

Thank you for explaining the article!

The Chilcot inquiry will be interesting, but what an omnishambles.

 

[tomtom94]

UK population set to top 70m by 2027:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34666382

Basically all the usual problems: too many old people, births outnumbering deaths, etc, but on the plus side they do at least attribute the gains in GDP in part to migration.

 

[Visualante2]

Raise the retirement age to 72

 

[CyclopsRock]

Raise the retirement age to 72

Or have national service between the ages of 65-72. If they survive training, they spend the remaining 6 years as our front-line soldiers. If they survive that too, they deserve their retirement.

 

[Uzzy]

Chilcot Enquiry report not now expected until the middle of next year. What bollocks.

A bad report is bad forever, a delayed report may eventually be great.

This is the most important report in perhaps a generation. I'd sooner wait for it to come out then it get rushed and miss something vital.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A bad report is bad forever, a delayed report may eventually be great.

This is the most important report in perhaps a generation. I'd sooner wait for it to come out then it get rushed and miss something vital.

It's the Chilcot "The Last Guardian" Report.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

I don't know if anyone else has seen this but it made me laugh :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syjp9lsWBhc

Basically a news reporter gets pissed off and gives us the real news (I believe it is a fake, the guy is a youtube comedian).

 

[JonathanEx]

Oh yeah you'll get it next year it's just taking ages as it's so long two million words ey

Yeah I know that trick from essays, he's not started has he

 

[Uzzy]

Oh yeah you'll get it next year it's just taking ages as it's so long two million words ey

Yeah I know that trick from essays, he's not started has he

He'll be mainlining coffee the night before, and appear before cameras in the morning shaking and looking tired and emotional.

It's the Chilcot "The Last Guardian" Report.

It'll be out before Half Life 3 at least. Maybe not before Iraq War 3 though.

 

[PJV3]

Oh yeah you'll get it next year it's just taking ages as it's so long two million words ey

Yeah I know that trick from essays, he's not started has he

It's twice the size of the Leveson report, it will take two months to print a copy, and a crane to get it into Downing St.

We're getting our money's worth.

 

[Jezbollah]

It's twice the size of the Leveson report, it will take two months to print a copy, and a crane to get it into Downing St.

We're getting our money's worth.

Plus Blair's already saying that "he looks forward to responding to the report"

yeah, so do we all Tone.

 

[War Peaceman]

Hasn't Blair already read anything that directly surrounds him? I swear I read that they had to inform involved parties prior to publication and include their responses.

 

[Moosichu]

Hasn't Blair already read anything that directly surrounds him? I swear I read that they had to inform involved parties prior to publication and include their responses.

Yep, it's one of the reasons why it hs taken so long.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...cks-bill-to-give-carers-free-hospital-parking

Unless I'm missing something, how could you possibly filibustering a bill like this? I would never be able to live with myself if I did that.

 

[kmag]

Yep, it's one of the reasons why it hs taken so long.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...cks-bill-to-give-carers-free-hospital-parking

Unless I'm missing something, how could you possibly filibustering a bill like this? I would never be able to live with myself if I did that.

He's a Tory, he's probably a director of the company that is hired by some trust to manage the car parks. If not him then a relative or someone who he used to fag for at school.

Operational Complexity cuts profit margins.