Support NeoGAF

[Syder]

Poster A: This region that voted to leave benefits from exporting to the EU.

You: That's not surprising, people who voted leave are idiots. Look at this entirely unrelated video where Gove was cut off in the middle of a fairly valid point about how finance bodies often get their predictions wrong and yet we still hold their views in high esteem and quote just the first half of a sentence.

If you'd like to back pedal away from what you said to suggest you meant something else, by all means.

I'd also point out that one can simultaneously gain benefits from something and think the benefits aren't worth the perceived drawbacks.

I never said they were idiots. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

[Dirtyshubb]

lol

Best for me is the fact May running through fields of wheat is something that will forever be remembered for the election.

 

[Coriolanus]

I like how the pollster kept THERESA MAY POSITIVE: 0 in the thing

 

[whyamihere]

lol

"running through fields of wheat"

lmao

 

[Dougald]

Best for me is the fact May running through fields of wheat is something that will forever be remembered for the election.

More people remember that than remember her doing anything positive!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

It's going to be strange looking back on that election from the future.

 

[CCS]

It's fun to note that it's the first time in ages the campaign has made any real difference.

 

[twofoldd]

So if I want to stay with my foreign partner, which I do, I should get fucked?

Reading the conditions and stipulations of applying for the spousal visas and IDL is so depressing. The stress it adds to your relationship is toxic. It turns your joy to despair.

Theresa May, Amber Rudd, the home office; they're a cruel bunch.

Sorry, but yeah. If you can't afford the fees you're basically fucked.

The visa costs around £2,000 and it's taking UKVI 3-5 months to process them at the moment. There's also the international health surcharge which costs £200 annually, though the conservatives want to raise that to £600 per year. That needs to be paid up front.

The visas only last for two and a half years, so you need to apply for another one as you can only apply for indefinite leave after being in the country for five years.

There's also additional misc costs along the way, and lawyer fees if you want a professional to check over your applications.

All in all, going from initial visa -> extension -> indefinite leave will cost at least £9k over 5 years, and more if fees go up again next April (which they will).

PM me if you have any questions about the process and I'll do my best to help / point you in the direction of some good resources to help.

And yeah, it does feel like a punishment for falling in love with someone with the wrong colour passport. It's pretty fucked up.

 

[War Peaceman]

Jeremy Corbyn NEUTRAL was a great moment in the campaign

 

[Theonik]

Jeremy Corbyn NEUTRAL was a great moment in the campaign

Needs to be added to character alignment charts stat.

 

[Number45]

lol

Bothering that somehow only 6% mentioned the dementia tax - it's all been lumped together as a "bad campaign" but people are already ignoring the specifics.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Jeremy Corbyn NEUTRAL was a great moment in the campaign

Tell my wife... tell my wife... tell my wife I said hello!!!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Sorry, but yeah. If you can't afford the fees you're basically fucked.

The visa costs around £2,000 and it's taking UKVI 3-5 months to process them at the moment. There's also the international health surcharge which costs £200 annually, though the conservatives want to raise that to £600 per year. That needs to be paid up front.

The visas only last for two and a half years, so you need to apply for another one as you can only apply for indefinite leave after being in the country for five years.

There's also additional misc costs along the way, and lawyer fees if you want a professional to check over your applications.

All in all, going from initial visa -> extension -> indefinite leave will cost at least £9k over 5 years, and more if fees go up again next April (which they will).

PM me if you have any questions about the process and I'll do my best to help / point you in the direction of some good resources to help.

And yeah, it does feel like a punishment for falling in love with someone with the wrong colour passport. It's pretty fucked up.

I've found immigration boards and expatforum to be more useful than the actual .GOV website a lot of the times.

 

[Uzzy]

Theresa May 'shed a tear' at election poll result.

Could have been oil, I suppose. Hydraulic fluid maybe.

 

[JonathanEx]

Two thoughts on that story.
1. It took Emma several questions to get the 'humanising' line out of her. So still not great.
2. Bit of an empty interview if that's the lead line they've chosen? They got nothing really new except trying to make her look better?


Edit: The rest of the interview seems to be decent questions so far from listening now on 5Live, but she's deflect deflect deflect on things like 'where's the humility', 'did you think to resign'. And 'how did YOU let that happen' on the campaign.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Just as she supposedly burst in to tears when she saw the remains of Grenfell, which I don't doubt, it counts for little when the face she presents to the public is, well, Theresa May. I mean, I just got a text from my girlfriend that said "Theresa May is pretending to be human."

Edit: I'm also not sure by how much it makes her look better: "Yes, I do show emotion - when bad things happen to me personally."

 

[SuperEpicMan]

Theresa May 'shed a tear' at election poll result.

Could have been oil, I suppose. Hydraulic fluid maybe.

 

[twofoldd]

I've found immigration boards and expatforum to be more useful than the actual .GOV website a lot of the times.

Expatforum is excellent. The moderators - Joppa and Nyclon - know their shit. They helped massively with our application.

Hadn't come across immigration boards before - thanks for the link.

There's also britishexpats, though I think the advice given is subpar, and uk-yankee, though it's only really useful for people applying from the US.

 

[cabot]

Following this interview, it does seem like May really doesn't understand why she lost.

She still thinks her Brexit is the right one, despite the one major vote since the referendum completely humbling her (and she really pushed Brexit as a reason for voting her through parts of the campaign).

She's talking about the young being upset about housing but nothing has been mentioned regarding housing policy since the election result.

Just reads like she's repeating reasons why they failed that others have told her that she doesn't believe.

I thought she'd stay in power for around a year or more but having following her since the election, I do think she'll be ousted in a few months.


That's the most I can glean, I am admittedly ignoring a rather large amount of sidestepping questions, which is another irritation.

 

[hohoXD123]

Following this interview, it really does seem like May really doesn't understand why she lost.

She still thinks her Brexit is the right one, despite the one major vote since the referendum completely humbling her (and she really pushed Brexit as a reason for voting her through parts of the campaign).


She's talking about the young being upset about housing but nothing has been mentioned regarding housing policy since the election result.


Just reads like she's repeating reasons why they failed that others have told her that she doesn't believe.


I thought she'd stay in power for around a year or more but having following her since the election, I do think she'll be ousted in a few months.

To be fair, Labour haven't come out and proposed a drastically different policy, they haven't called for membership of the single market to be a top priority despite free movement, they proposed a jobs first brexit whatever that means. They'll be less antagonistic and downright stupid when it comes to dealing with the EU leaders but for actual policies? I'm not so sure. Lib Dems do have a different Brexit policy but they didn't exactly bring forth an electoral maelstrom.

 

[cabot]

While that may be true, keep in mind Labour also pushed more spending and improvements to services, where the Tories promised nothing but cuts to places that hit their base, more nanny state and more austerity.

Brexit means Brexit was their only not-negative big pitch, and it was based on ....extremely optimistic outlook.

 

[hohoXD123]

While that may be true, keep in mind Labour also pushed more spending and improvements to services, where the Tories promised nothing but cuts to places that hit their base, more nanny state and more austerity.

Brexit means Brexit was their only not-negative big pitch, and it was based on ....extremely optimistic outlook.

I mean sure, but if their Brexit policies were similar and their spending/social welfare policies were completely different it stands to reason that we can't take people voting Labour as them denouncing Tory Brexit policy. If it was the other way around then sure, or if many more people voted Lib Dems then again I can see that.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I mean sure, but if their Brexit policies were similar and their spending/social welfare policies were completely different it stands to reason that we can't take people voting Labour as them denouncing Tory Brexit policy. If it was the other way around then sure, or if many more people voted Lib Dems then again I can see that.

Yeah, I think (on a purely political level) the Tories holding their nerve on Brexit was one of the few things they did right in their campaign. The margins were tight enough that in a lot of places, if they'd emboldened UKIP (or more accurately, slowed the party's collapse), they would have lost a lot more seats to Labour.

 

[tuxfool]

Here is an interesting graph. It shows that this has been the longest streak in public spending cuts since the second world war.

 

[cabot]

I mean sure, but if their Brexit policies were similar and their spending/social welfare policies were completely different it stands to reason that we can't take people voting Labour as them denouncing Tory Brexit policy. If it was the other way around then sure, or if many more people voted Lib Dems then again I can see that.

It gets difficult here because while Labour are broadly following the Tory Brexit, they're being intentionally vague, which feels an action to allow them to change course if the economy worsens significantly.


There's also the pretty massive issue of FPTP forcing most constituencies to choose between the two main parties as opposed to the LD alternative, and the devolved parties clouding up choices as well.


Basically, while you are right in you can't see people voting labour to denounce the Tory Brexit policy, you can't really see people voting Labour to support the Tory Brexit policy either.


it's all a mess I've gone cross-eyed.


I miss the good old days where I ignored politics instead of following daily live blogs on the happy haps.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Here is an interesting graph. It shows that this has been the longest streak in public spending cuts since the second world war.

I remember it being something like, £70+ million that my local council has had to cut from their budget since 2010, and they still need to cut another £11 million now. While in terms of what money they get from central government...

If that's true - though worth bearing in mind we're a Labour run council - then by the end of the decade they will have functionally wiped out almost of central government funding to the area. Yeah there's other revenue sources, but that extra cash propped up a lot of services. It's sad but not surprising that the area has seen one of the biggest rises in homelessness in the country. The council's having to put together a Homeless 'hub' in order to try and alleviate things.

 

[hohoXD123]

It gets difficult here because while Labour are broadly following the Tory Brexit, they're being intentionally vague, which feels an action to allow them to change course if the economy worsens significantly.


There's also the pretty massive issue of FPTP forcing most constituencies to choose between the two main parties as opposed to the LD alternative, and the devolved parties clouding up choices as well.


Basically, while you are right in you can't see people voting labour to denounce the Tory Brexit policy, you can't really see people voting Labour to support the Tory Brexit policy either.


it's all a mess I've gone cross-eyed.


I miss the good old days where I ignored politics instead of following daily live blogs on the happy haps.

Yeah, we can agree here. I think the most you can do is take a neutral view , don't particularly agree with people using Labour support to show that the public now disagree with the Tories' Brexit policy, but neither do I agree with the Tories saying that 85% voted for Brexit parties as though that means that 85% of people voted for Tory Brexit policy.

 

[Horsefly]

Here is an interesting graph. It shows that this has been the longest streak in public spending cuts since the second world war.

Sorry to challenge you for the fool title, but can you walk me through that graph?

 

[Crispy75]

Sorry to challenge you for the fool title, but can you walk me through that graph?

It's yearly govt. spending since 1955, adjusted for inflation to 2016 £s

It broadly mirrors growth in GDP over the same period (GDP and govt spending are 4x what they were in 1955)

 

[Horsefly]

It's yearly govt. spending since 1955, adjusted for inflation to 2016 £s

It broadly mirrors growth in GDP over the same period (GDP and govt spending are 4x what they were in 1955)

ok, I had to ask because the dip after 2010 is not as 'dippy' as I might have expected

 

[Crispy75]

ok, I had to ask because the dip after 2010 is not as 'dippy' as I might have expected

Here's a horribly photoshopped overlay of GDP (red) on govt. spending (blue)

There's a pretty clear disconnect at this point, which supports the idea that the current cuts are not "neccesary" but ideological in nature. The tories want a smaller state for the sake of a smalle state, not because it's unaffordable.

 

[Horsefly]

Here's a horribly photoshopped overlay of GDP (red) on govt. spending (blue)

There's a pretty clear disconnect at this point, which supports the idea that the current cuts are not "neccesary" but ideological in nature. The tories want a smaller state for the sake of a smalle state, not because it's unaffordable.

ah ok, that gives some context, thanks

 

[tuxfool]

Here is "fuck you, got mine" the chart.

This is from the OBR report. Note the correlation between spending and those that vote for austerity. It absolutely makes sense that the chart is that way, people of working age don't need as much spent on them directly, if only those that also benefit from the spending weren't working to deprive others, maybe that is why they don't think austerity exists?

 

[*Splinter]

I'm a bit confused. Isn't it the pensioners who overwhelmingly vote Tory (and therefore for austerity).

This chart only says education spending is mostly on the young while welfare spending (including pensions) is mostly on the old. Which... yeah.

 

[CCS]

I'm a bit confused. Isn't it the pensioners who overwhelmingly vote Tory (and therefore for austerity).

I believe that's the point. Austerity by and large hasn't touched pensioners, so they've been voting for austerity for everyone else whilst not feeling the effects themselves.

 

[GamingKaiju]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-lost-tax-revenue-treasury-productivity-growth-rate-obr-office-budget-a7838891.html

I can't see how a Brexitteer could read that and still think Brexit is a good idea.

£100 billion lost in GDP in 50 years. This won't include the UKs exit bill from the EU. So it is going to be 2x higher already.

 

[*Splinter]

I believe that's the point. Austerity by and large hasn't touched pensioners, so they've been voting for austerity for everyone else whilst not feeling the effects themselves.

I would agree with that but it didn't seem to be what Tuxfool was arguing. Maybe I misunderstood.

 

[tuxfool]

I would agree with that but it didn't seem to be what Tuxfool was arguing. Maybe I misunderstood.

That was the correct interpretation.

 

[Burai]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-lost-tax-revenue-treasury-productivity-growth-rate-obr-office-budget-a7838891.html

I can't see how a Brexitteer could read that and still think Brexit is a good idea.

£100 billion lost in GDP in 50 years. This won't include the UKs exit bill from the EU. So it is going to be 2x higher already.

"Typical Remoaner scaremongering, talking our country down. Also, we won't be paying any exit bill."

 

[kmag]

"Typical Remoaner scaremongering, talking our country down. Also, we won't be paying any exit bill."

They'll be paying us to leave!

And the jam. Don't forget about the jam.

 

[cabot]

I believe that's the point. Austerity by and large hasn't touched pensioners, so they've been voting for austerity for everyone else whilst not feeling the effects themselves.

Well it was always going to happen, it probably would've been longer down the road had a lot of the old not contributed to Brexit.

 

[GamingKaiju]

"Typical Remoaner scaremongering, talking our country down. Also, we won't be paying any exit bill."

"We took back control damn it"

 

[Dougald]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-lost-tax-revenue-treasury-productivity-growth-rate-obr-office-budget-a7838891.html

I can't see how a Brexitteer could read that and still think Brexit is a good idea.

£100 billion lost in GDP in 50 years. This won't include the UKs exit bill from the EU. So it is going to be 2x higher already.

They won't believe it until it starts happening. This country has a superiority complex which will only be dislodged by the cold, hard truth that we haven't been a global power for a long time

 

[jelly]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-lost-tax-revenue-treasury-productivity-growth-rate-obr-office-budget-a7838891.html

I can't see how a Brexitteer could read that and still think Brexit is a good idea.

£100 billion lost in GDP in 50 years. This won't include the UKs exit bill from the EU. So it is going to be 2x higher already.

All those foreigners not stealing our fish, benefits, coating NHS more money etc. will add up to 100 billion!

Public services are going to end up in the sewage works post Brexit. Some tough times, May said, not lying but people are idiots.

I see the BBC guy doing her PR now has gone straight for the crocodile tears revamp for May. That will sort those robot jibes.

 

[Beefy]

Is Phill Dunn a member or MP for Lib Dems? Cus he is walking on dodgy ground:

He is agreeing with this shit:
https://twitter.com/bisialimi/status/885423387224539136

About a school doing a paper on slave trading...



Some of his tweets:

What is the context here? If it was to highlight how appalling the slave trade was, maybe there's a justification.

I have done lessons where i discriminated against the kids with blue eyes without telling them at first. This led to work on injustice.

Yes, I would consider something similar if it eas appropriate. Don't forget most UK kids have no first hand experience of these issues.

The thing is it has to be done with sensitivty. Looking only at one item of teaching material can be very misleading. Context is key here.

We are on the same side here. Sometimes examples work better than any history book.

Yes it is dehumanising. Slavery of ALL people is dehumanising. THAT'S what we want kids to understand in the hope that they never repeat it.

https://twitter.com/bisialimi/status/885423387224539136

Sort him out Huw

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Is Phill Dunn a member or MP for Lib Dems? Cus he is walking on dodgy ground:

One single handout isn't really a good way of trying to figure out how a topic is being taught. But on the other hand, it's not a very good handout.

Am I right in assuming that the two arguments are:

1. "This is a way of demonstrating the reality of the slave trade to students to connect them more emotionally with the topic."
2. "This trivialises the topic, or is racist, or otherwise objectionable." - I'm less clear on this, so it'd help to have this explained. But there's definitely a problem with presenting this exact topic in this way.

It's hard to call this without actually knowing how the course is being taught. I did a topic on the slave trade way back in high school and remember it being taught bluntly (lots of focus on the obscenely cruel treatment of enslaved people). So if this is used as a context for that, to demonstrate the very real difference between slave owner and slave (and importantly to demonstrate how slave owners thought - that the slave populace were commodities), then I think it could be used to good effect.

Not terribly surprising for a Lib Dem to look for context and evidence, though.

I took a glance through the linked chap's Twitter feed and this appears to be in the context of a school with some nasty issues in the past though.

 

[Beefy]

One single handout isn't really a good way of trying to figure out how a topic is being taught. But on the other hand, it's not a very good handout.

Am I right in assuming that the two arguments are:

1. "This is a way of demonstrating the reality of the slave trade to students to connect them more emotionally with the topic."
2. "This trivialises the topic, or is racist, or otherwise objectionable." - I'm less clear on this, so it'd help to have this explained. But there's definitely a problem with presenting this exact topic in this way.

It's hard to call this without actually knowing how the course is being taught. I did a topic on the slave trade way back in high school and remember it being taught bluntly (lots of focus on the obscenely cruel treatment of enslaved people). So if this is used as a context for that, to demonstrate the very real difference between slave owner and slave (and importantly to demonstrate how slave owners thought - that the slave populace were commodities), then I think it could be used to good effect.

Not terribly surprising for a Lib Dem to look for context and evidence, though.

I took a glance through the linked chap's Twitter feed and this appears to be in the context of a school with some nasty issues in the past though.

Yeah. The Lib Dem guy is still arguing about it being a good thing

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Yeah. The Lib Dem guy is still arguing about it being a good thing

I think it's dependent on the context and the quality of teaching more than anything else. Doing a roleplay task w/ students covering a topic like slavery, or in this case buying slaves, may be educational and useful. But OTOH it could very easily turn into a nasty racist mess. But context is king.

 

[Beefy]

I think it's dependent on the context and the quality of teaching more than anything else. Doing a roleplay task w/ students covering a topic like slavery, or in this case buying slaves, may be educational and useful. But OTOH it could very easily turn into a nasty racist mess. But context is king.

The guy linked the article about the Kent school. The Lib Dem dude said it depends how it is taught, when the article says how bad it is taught

 

[twofoldd]

Interesting editorial from Tony Blair in the New Statesman.

He has a lot to say, but here's a few quotes -

The election result should enable a fundamental re-appraisal of Brexit. Large numbers of people voted to stop a hard Brexit and rejected explicitly the mandate Theresa May was demanding. Instead, both main parties remain wedded to leaving the single market.

Now we argue over long transitional periods, and complicated methods of re-creating new regulatory mechanisms with Europe – which essentially mean we will have to keep close to European regulation – when all such things do is re-emphasise the inherent dangers of the whole venture.

On the other hand, if we do leave the single market and customs union, then it is also clear that the economic damage is potentially large. No one who has seriously examined these issues believes that a third country free trade agreement (FTA) is remotely a substitute for membership of the single market. A "jobs first" Brexit outside the single market is a contradiction in terms.

So when people blithely say "we will get roughly the same terms as we do now with the single market", I literally know no one in the European system who believes this.

This is where what happens to the Labour Party matters so much. The ambiguity of Labour's position on Europe may have helped us access both Remain and Leave votes, though I am dubious.

However, it can't last. If Labour continues to be for leaving the single market, and the signs are that it will, then we are essentially for the same policy as the government.

This will become apparent to those who voted Remain. But more than that, it puts us in the same damaging position for the economy as the Tories; and in circumstances where we are also trying to end austerity through spending programmes which, to be clear, are larger than any Labour Party has ever proposed.

I agree Labour had a remarkable result which I did not foresee. I pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn's temperament in the campaign, to the mobilisation of younger voters and enthusiasm this generated. His supporters shouldn't exaggerate it; but his critics including me shouldn't under-state it. He tapped into something real and powerful, as Bernie Sanders has in the US and left-wing groups have done all over Europe.

There is a genuine and widespread desire for change and for the politics of social justice. This should alter the context in which we debate politics; and help influence the policy solutions.

But it doesn't alter the judgement about the risks of an unchanged Corbyn programme, if he became prime minister and tried to implement it at the same time as Brexit.

If a right-wing populist punch in the form of Brexit was followed by a left-wing populist punch in the form of unreconstructed hard-left economics, Britain would hit the canvas, flat on our back and be out for a long count.

The common refrain among some Labour MPs is that the policies were popular, and if we retain them and unite, we will win next time. We should beware our own form of hubris. The Tories are not going to run another campaign like that one.

Next time, Labour's economic programme will come under vastly greater scrutiny. No one is going to believe that there is not a real possibility of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. The campaign mishaps which happened every time the spending figures were put under the spotlight won't pass so easily.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ange-terms-brexit-labours-ambiguity-cant-last

It's long, but worth a read. He speaks a lot of sense.