Hahahahahahaha. No.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
Speedymanic
Banned
I can't imagine how much of a spanner this has thrown in the plans for many young kids who didn't the grade they wanted/expected/were told by teachers they should expect. I'm so damn glad I'm out of the system, would be a nightmare to have to go through it in its current form.
On a related note, did Newsnight cover it? Any links available?
milanbaros
Member?
There is just no way that was the case, especially on one of the most contentious issues in economics.
Germany is growing within the Eurozone. We're in recession outside of it.
Maybe it speaks volumes about our school system that you think those quotes are saying the same thing.
I seem to forget something I don't recall hearing or reading at all? I would be amazed if that were true, that people had high confidence in the economy at all when not 3 months ago we were being told that the Eurozone was going to collapse any day now...
...any day now....
...just watch, it's going....
...keep watching....
...oh fuck it's still there, do we get to claim we were right if it takes another 2 years?
Speedymanic
Banned
Yeah, I've never really bought that argument.
Still, with unemployment going down and with tax receipts also down and with the government having to borrow more for welfare payments, something doesn't add up.
Cooking the unemployment figures to include those who are forced to work for their benefits as someone mentioned earlier? That's considered full time work, is it not?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I agree with you to an extent, but I would clarify to say that negativity will only spread and have an effect if there are genuine reasons behind it. There has to be some reality on which to grasp.
Unemployment drops were due to people in "work schemes" being removed and part time staff for the Olympics were they not?
So yes, those numbers are cooked to fuck I imagine.
Of course, but the post I quoted was referencing one which essentially said that people should feel guilty for enjoying the Olympics and how very dare they choose to ignore the misery etc... I kind of agree that when there is very little (aside from either spend money or vote) that you can do about something why should you have it forced down your throat all day?
Meatpuppet
Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19366621
Contraction slightly less than ONS had previously reported.
Contraction slightly less than ONS had previously reported.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Yes, their point was silly, and I completely agree there. Although it is brilliant to see drunk Bunk discussing UK politics.
0.5% instead of 0.7%, is it wrong I just don't give a shit about all these decimals, even out of recession it's like "0.5% growth!", wake me up when it's either 1+% up or down either way.
Speedymanic
Banned
I figured as much. I remembered reading an interview where IDS claimed more people were in full time work, so it's fair to say he was referring to people in those work schemes?
Slightly less is always good, but that's still not pretty reading. Next quarter will hopefully see a bump thanks tot he Olympics, but the quarter after that will be the one to watch. if there's growth next Q (there should be) and contraction the following Q....bad times ahead for the Gov, but then I'm sure they'll blame the weather.
In fairness they have got at least half a dozen countries what cannot compete with them in the Eurozone because they have no way of adjusting their own fiscal policies who are rapidly going down the shitter to the benefit of the Germans.
Hitler will be dancing in his grave....
I think so, at least that's what I recall reading but it might have been some partisan news source (most of them these days, baring the Beeb).
I work in construction and the work is generally out there.... If it ever stops raining we can carry on laying bricks.
Seriously the weather this year has been as bad as I can remember and it completely fucks builders over, there's no wonder construction is slower.
radioheadrule83
Banned
The tip of the balance in the market from west to east is just a part of greater circumstances -- everything about this crisis came about as a result of an unregulated, greed satiating, speculative gaming on the market. Trying to make money out of runs on banks and failing companies, giving mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, packaging up bad debts and selling them, manipulation of lending rates, whole countries cooking the books to hide the extent of their problems -- this whole crisis is borne out of self preservation, greed and dishonesty.
edit: I totally agree its not a science though. There's no black and white for sure... one man, company or country's medicine could easily be another's poison.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Economics is a very vast field that encompasses a variety of components. Economics is a science, but one that has yet to perfect its predictive abilities. That hinges on advancing a couple of fields, especially behavioural economics which is in its infancy.
I completely agree with this, economics is a joke of a subject and it's an outrage the way economists pretend to be 'scientists' and try to predict the future. Any attempt to use 'economists says this' or something similar should just be disregarded really. Of course, there are many economists who do realise the limitations of their professions but sadly they remain in the minority.
Re: all economists support austerity.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BritishPoliticsAndPolicyAtLse/~3/Ppyijoup4JM/
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BritishPoliticsAndPolicyAtLse/~3/Ppyijoup4JM/
Ofqual proven to be Gove's lapdogs, FACT.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19438536
As for the new anti-squatters law...I have no opinion. I just hope I never get put in that position myself. Either way, it's a typically Tory move.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19438536
As for the new anti-squatters law...I have no opinion. I just hope I never get put in that position myself. Either way, it's a typically Tory move.
Jezbollah
Member
UK PoliGaf returns! Yay 
Re Squatters - I have no problem with them living in empty, unused houses. I have a MAJOR problem if they move into a house that is obviously in use with the owners away. I feel this law has been created for the obvious bad apples that has spoilt it for the whole bunch, so to speak.
Re Squatters - I have no problem with them living in empty, unused houses. I have a MAJOR problem if they move into a house that is obviously in use with the owners away. I feel this law has been created for the obvious bad apples that has spoilt it for the whole bunch, so to speak.
The IMF is certainly not a politically neutral third party. Along with the World Bank, the IMF is the body that enforces neoliberalism around the world at the behest of the USA. So, it's not a surprise that the IMF would support austerity measures as that's exactly the policy it has been forcing upon governments for the last 20 years.
UK PoliGaf returns! Yay
Re Squatters - I have no problem with them living in empty, unused houses. I have a MAJOR problem if they move into a house that is obviously in use with the owners away. I feel this law has been created for the obvious bad apples that has spoilt it for the whole bunch, so to speak.
Agreed.
They are, I think.
The change to the law is, as far as I can tell, completely unnecessary. Under the old law (s7 Criminal Law Act 1977), if a person was squatting in a person's home (or potential home), then it became a criminal offence as soon as they were asked to leave & the police then had powers to arrest and prosecute anyone squatting. This is in addition to normal laws on criminal damage, theft, etc, which cover breaking and entering, stealing electricity etc. If it was an unoccupied residential property then the owner could go to court, get an interim possession order (which apparently only takes a day or two), with the effect that if the squatters then refuse to move, they commit and offence & the police can move in.
The major issue with the old law is that the police either didn't know they had these powers, or couldn't be arsed to do anything about it, instead telling people that it was a civil matter. They'd then waste weeks in court when the police could have sorted it out fairly quickly. I think it's that situation that gives rise to all of the 'i went to buy milk and when i came back there were squatters' horror stories certain papers like to peddle.
Hilariously the new law makes the position worse in some respects. s.7 of the CLA '77 included gardens, whereas the new law doesn't. So there may be a 'garden shed' exception to the new law.
It seems like a quite blatant move to placate readers of the Daily Mail, in the face of massive opposition (96% of people who replied to the consultation were against criminalisation). It's going to end up costing a fortune, too.
Or they just really hate poor people. Both equally likely, sadly.
blahblah...blah
Member
Can I get some more info on this consultation? 96% seems overwhelmingly one-sided.
EDIT: Looked it up, and it was indeed 96%, but when you have only 2,000 responses, you have to assume a self-selection bias, and you certainly can't draw any conclusions about the public's true opinion.
Nonetheless, the government completely ignored a public consultation on the matter, all to impose a punitive law whose basis can be said to be mainly ideological, just to please their core support base ahead of a cabinet reshuffle and party conference season.
Elected they may be, but "of the people" they are not.
killer_clank
Member
It's important to remember consultations are NOT referendums. The same sex marriage consultation in Scotland had more against the proposal than in favour and were butthurt whe it went against them. Far bigger response and more emotive issue obviously, but it's more about gaining opinions about things than pure numbers.
96% is rough, but with 2000 responses it's not representative in anyway.
96% is rough, but with 2000 responses it's not representative in anyway.
It seems that of the 2000+ responses only 10 wrote in claiming to be victims of squatting. You'd think if the old law was causing great injustice, there would be far more people who thought it was a problem.
In any case, the law is now in force and there doesn't seem much hope of it being repealed any time soon. There's a challenge being brought in the courts, but I doubt it will succeed, from the little i've read of how it's being argued.
blahblah...blah
Member
If people are willing to use this consultation as evidence of public opinion, then it is logically sound to say that around 300,000 people perceive there to be injustice (60,000,000 people divided by the 2,000 respondents * the 10 who complained about squatting = 300,000). Factor in the self-selection bias, where those who were aware of the consultation are more likely to be for squatting than against it, and you can reach a very large number of people who have been negatively affected by the old law. Enough to merit a change, at least.
Of course, all this rests on the assumption that this consultation is in any way representative. So, the way I see it, proponents of squatting have two options: admit the consultation is meaningless, or continue to insist that it has some value, and accept that a large number are negatively affected by squatting.
blahblah...blah
Member
I agree, but - and I genuinely hope that I seem reasonable here, and not biased due to my own beliefs - I can imagine large numbers of squatters sharing this consultation within their social circles, spreading it online amongst Facebook groups, etc. whereas each individual affected by squatting is less likely to pass it on to people (on account of it not being a 'cause' to them). I would imagine, overall, the bias in this consultation skewed towards the squatters.
Fair point. Perhaps the consultation isn't the best evidence of general public opinion. But consider that the Metropolitan police, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society were against the changes. This isn't just a few thousand squatters who have a vested interest, people and organisation who know the law were against the changes.
I think the far stronger argument is that the old law was perfectly adequate. The issue was that the police either didn't understand they had the power to get involved, or didn't want to use that power.
blahblah...blah
Member
Fair enough. If this is true, which I assume it is, that is far more compelling evidence to me. Although as you say, if the police were deliberately or unknowingly not using their full power, something needed to be done, albeit perhaps not a sweeping new piece of legislation.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
In the main, I think this a good move (the old law notwithstanding). Trouble is, under the old law, there was always, or nearly always, a defense of adverse possession - a leftover bit of law from when it wasn't feasible to find the true owner of a property (this more--or-less vanished when the land registry was made public in the 1990's, but there was a period of grace until the early 2000's), and because of the legal situation at the time it just wasn't really sensible to bring the criminal law into play. The case law reflects that I think.
There might still be an issue with registered v unregistered land, but there ought no longer to be an issue with people needing lengthy civil cases to reclaim their property - a typical civil case lasts upwards of a year and costs a lot, but criminal law works a bunch faster.
If, and only if, there's a problem with this (which is essentially just a speeding-up of justice) should there be an outcry.
Thanks (just so you know, I have a law degree, I know what adverse possession is).
I don't really understand your point about the new law simply being a 'speeding-up of justice'. Under s.7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 it is a criminal offence for a trespasser to remain on premises after they have been asked to leave by the residential occupier or by an intended occupier. So the new law only makes a difference to landlords/those who own lots of property who leave property vacant, which i don't think is a significant enough reason to criminalise squatting, given the countervailing arguments. The issue has always been, based on what I've read from housing law experts, that the police defaulted to telling people that it was a civil matter, and people then got bogged down in going to the courts.
I also don't understand how adverse possession was nearly always a defence. The period of adverse possession is ten years for registered land. I'm disinclined to be sympathetic towards someone who leaves their property vacant for such a period of time that adverse possession is a realistic defence.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The difficulty with the 1977 offence was in detemining whether the suspect was a "trespasser" - you are't a trespasser (very roughly) merely by taking possession of land, particularly if you may have some right to it.
The adverse possession bit comes in because it wasn't until the Land Registration Act of (I think) 1993 that the register was made public, and not until the LRA of about 2003 that the rules on adverse possession changed, Until then it was always, even with registered land, possible to claim that you did not know who the landowner was and to at least stake a claim under adverse possession in the civil courts which essentially slowed down proceedings a lot.
EDIT: It's worth remembering also that, aside from the weird and wonderful case law surrounding it, the adverse possession rule was largely used by people re-establishing a claim to their own land when they had lost the deeds. It was never quite the charter for 'occupier takes all' that it seems at first sight.
Shock horror. Why anyone thought that would be a good idea, I will never know.
CHEEZMO™;41712659 said:
I came here to post this. I really think it's important to take note of Krugman's point that 'there's no easy way to recovery it's going to take ages' is a piece of claptrap. It's taking ages because rather than commit any economic orthodoxy, the chancellor is pursuing ideological ends at the expense of the majority of the population. And that reflects another theme that I think needs to be reiterated, which is that this government is not incompetent, they are actively malicious. Their only incompetence is their failure to hide it.
Love it.
killer_clank
Member
Clarke going is a terrible mistake IMO, but then I am a liberal when it comes to sentencing as well. One of the only sane ministers at this point, and he has bags of ministerial experience, which is partially why Cameron got in this mess to begin with. No doubt they'll get some hideous Ian Duncan Smith type in.
Mecha_Infantry
Banned
I only like her as she seems like an old friends mum...kinda sexy
killer_clank
Member
Gove and IDS are staying. Looking like Lansley is gone.