-
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
Nicktendo86
Member
Because this is an option. I am not a fan of the proposals but if it is anything like talk talk which I signed up to lately it is very very easy to opt out and, frankly, parents SHOULD block a lot on that list from their kids but are too fucking dumb to do so. As I say I am not a fan of the proposals, it is annoying, but I dont think it is worth being up in arms over until the government make isp's block sites without your permission.
They already do this. Well I suppose it's through the courts technically but the government lets it happen.
Nicktendo86
Member
True, I meant block the wide ranging catagories, sorry.
CyclopsRock
Member
I haven't heard anyone endorse it, but aside from anything, that article seems a bit... mental. That's a totally voluntary, private filter that has been around for ages. And it should be praised, as it gives parents the ability to filter what their kids see. I'll judge what the Tories do when they do it.
Nicktendo86
Member
Not sure where else to post this but jut got back from the new a&e at the London hospital (cut my lip open hitting it on my tv while checking hdmi ports) and it was EXCELLENT. Waited 15 min and the new ward was lovely.
Deborah Orr wrote an article in the Guardian that I mostly agree with.
My early comments in the main thread (about how this won't actually be enacted) are now entirely incorrect, but I disagree with the policy not on some fundamental ethical level, but because of the technical difficulties in enforcing it fairly, and concerns over the vulnerability of any information stored by the providers.
Claims that this amount to censorship are hyperbolic, imo. I think a good comparison is with softcore lad mags. IIRC, either this government or the last required such magazines to come with opaque covers, so that any sexual content could not be seen by children in shops. That isn't censorship in my book - anyone is free to publish such content as they wish, as they were before that rule were introduced. (All that changed was their ability to promote it, but advertising is already, and rightly, thoroughly regulated.) Similarly, this ruling doesn't limit anyone's ability to produce or distribute porn, nor does it prevent people from opting out of the filtering system so as to access it.
The idea is stupid for a variety of reasons, such that porn-hungry children will be able to bypass the filters, invariably the filters will simultaneously block too much and too little, and this won't reverse any of the damaging effects of a porn-influenced, over-sexualised culture (if we agree that there are any). (I personally do, but in order to promote more positive, healthy attitudes to sex I think we need to teach our children to critically asses porn in the same manner they should any media. Naturally, this seems to be a view point lacking in any party's thinking at this time.) Having said that, claims that this is some China-style censorship are ridiculous.
CyclopsRock
Member
Most of the "anger" that I've experienced has been on the basis that it's opt-out rather than opt-in. Orr's byline says "The angry arguments against David Cameron's opt-in filter proposals seem to imply that it's normal to want access to porn, and abnormal not to want access to porn" but I don't think it's that - what's normal is wanting to make the decisions on what is and isn't appropriate yourself. Filters are rarely supported by the people they're meant to filter on behalf of, be it school kids at school, employees at work or kids at home. So of course people are going to be a bit peeved if they have to opt-out of such a scheme.
I don't see how the filter prevents the bolded. You're still given the decision to opt out of the filtering, and thus the full ability to watch porn. Instead of being asked "Do you not want to watch porn?", you are now asked "Do you want to watch porn?" You can still answer "yes" or "no" as you please.
If the government literally made it impossible to watch porn via the internet (such that there were no legal method via which one could access it), then, indeed, that would be censorship.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I had drinks with a Tory last night. Pretty high up I would say. Said there is basically zero support within the party or on the backbenches for any kind of opt-out for porn filter. He said if it comes in (which he finds unlikely given the scale of internal opposition) it will be opt-in to filter and that it will be codified in legislation that it can't be made opt-in for "adult material".
He thinks the PM is on a hiding to nothing and that Claire Perry is an idiot who needs to be told to shut up. She was actually supposed to get a promotion to being an official minister in the pre-recess reshuffle, but Dave scotched it and now with her pending lawsuit with Guido he thinks Dave won't be able to manoeuvre her into a position of power. The guy thinks support for this measure from MPs is in the low teens, not even the likes of Peter Bone and the right wingers support it and the Libertarian/Whig wing loathe the idea on principle. He said even the likes of Michael Howard are pretty sceptical on the reality of having a national "adult material" filter and how it would affect our reputation around the world.
He also doesn't think it would end at porn, hence his use of "adult material". He thinks if a default filter makes it onto the statute book the law would be written in such a way as to be easily amended for new content on the premise of "well you don't know what the internet will be like in 10 years" but it will allow for some future government to abuse it and stick in all kinds of regular websites, or for the copyright lobby to get every torrent site filtered by default.
Finally he said the other major concern within the party over opt-in for porn is that other government and non-government agencies would likely have access to the list. So people who work in the care industries or as doctors and nurses may find that their case is reviewed more harshly if a check for the "porno list" is added to the CRB/DBS application process. He said it boils down to whether MPs believe the government should be getting into people's bedrooms and telling them what to do in their private lives. Most Tory MPs (unsurprisingly) think this is a poor idea, he said not a single Cabinet minister supports the move, and the deeply religious culture sec Maria Miller has previously tried to kill the proposal (succeeding initially).
He thinks the PM is on a hiding to nothing and that Claire Perry is an idiot who needs to be told to shut up. She was actually supposed to get a promotion to being an official minister in the pre-recess reshuffle, but Dave scotched it and now with her pending lawsuit with Guido he thinks Dave won't be able to manoeuvre her into a position of power. The guy thinks support for this measure from MPs is in the low teens, not even the likes of Peter Bone and the right wingers support it and the Libertarian/Whig wing loathe the idea on principle. He said even the likes of Michael Howard are pretty sceptical on the reality of having a national "adult material" filter and how it would affect our reputation around the world.
He also doesn't think it would end at porn, hence his use of "adult material". He thinks if a default filter makes it onto the statute book the law would be written in such a way as to be easily amended for new content on the premise of "well you don't know what the internet will be like in 10 years" but it will allow for some future government to abuse it and stick in all kinds of regular websites, or for the copyright lobby to get every torrent site filtered by default.
Finally he said the other major concern within the party over opt-in for porn is that other government and non-government agencies would likely have access to the list. So people who work in the care industries or as doctors and nurses may find that their case is reviewed more harshly if a check for the "porno list" is added to the CRB/DBS application process. He said it boils down to whether MPs believe the government should be getting into people's bedrooms and telling them what to do in their private lives. Most Tory MPs (unsurprisingly) think this is a poor idea, he said not a single Cabinet minister supports the move, and the deeply religious culture sec Maria Miller has previously tried to kill the proposal (succeeding initially).
I guess the rest of the Tories party are smart enough to know that this will be a vote killer with under 35s and men.
CyclopsRock
Member
Indeedy, which is why I didn't say it was censorship
I didn't even use the word. My point was simply that people aren't angry about thinking porn is normal, it's that this legislation would treat them as children, and I don't blame them; The default position shouldn't ever be "obstruction" in the case of something completely legal.Indeedy, which is why I didn't say it was censorship
I honestly don't see how this legislation would treat people as children, in the same way that the proposal to put cigarettes in plain packaging (and out of the sight of consumers) doesn't treat people as children. (In both cases, the consumer can be said to be obstructed from the good.)
I think your post highlights what Deborah Orr was writing about, that a lot of the complaints about this legislation seem to imply that of course you should want to watch porn, and that there is something unusual or abnormal with finding it somewhat distasteful. (To clarify, I personally don't enjoy most porn, but I can see why others do. And, again, I am not in favour of this legislation.)
zomgbbqftw
Banned
UK growth forecasts are set to be upgraded by pretty much every bank/agency out there, from ~1.1% average to 1.5-1.7% average. The most bullish I have seen says 2.2% for 2013, the most negative (some leftist think tank) is sticking to 0.9% (which would imply no growth for the third and fourth quarters and that seems unlikely given the spate of positive data over the last month or so).
I think the economy is very, very close to turning the proverbial corner, the recession getting deeper was not good for the figures (the ONS added around 1% to the recession in it's most recent set of revisions) but we're around 3% below the peak now, I think by the end of 2014 we may finally be out of the trough and looking forwards again with wages and GDP per capita finally rising in real terms again.
I was looking at some of the detail this morning, around half of the GDP increase in the quarter just gone was "consumer led" the rest was "producer led" so a much better balance than I had first thought, and a good basis for the rest of the year because a consumer boom would have been much less sustainable than a production boom (on the back of rising exports) since domestic demand is geared towards imported goods.
I think the economy is very, very close to turning the proverbial corner, the recession getting deeper was not good for the figures (the ONS added around 1% to the recession in it's most recent set of revisions) but we're around 3% below the peak now, I think by the end of 2014 we may finally be out of the trough and looking forwards again with wages and GDP per capita finally rising in real terms again.
I was looking at some of the detail this morning, around half of the GDP increase in the quarter just gone was "consumer led" the rest was "producer led" so a much better balance than I had first thought, and a good basis for the rest of the year because a consumer boom would have been much less sustainable than a production boom (on the back of rising exports) since domestic demand is geared towards imported goods.
Jezbollah
Member
That's good to hear Zomg, thanks for that. I was reading a few months back about the "wrong type of recovery" (I believe it was a Flanders article on the BBC) stating just like you did - that consumer dominated growth is not entirely what we need right now - so in those few months we have seen a big growth in production to even the balance.
I just hope that we sustain this period of positivity to turn that corner.
I just hope that we sustain this period of positivity to turn that corner.
Nicktendo86
Member
So picking up just before the election, Labour must be doing a rain dance.
A Tory peer writes off much of the North-East of England as "uninhabited and desolate", ripe for fracking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, it makes sense, doesn't it? It's the least populated part of the UK. We need to get fuel from somewhere, and an area being desolate is a good thing! It also has access to a load of water, and would create some jobs in an area desperately in need of them.
Sorry, I've only just seen this. Plain cigarette packaging treats people like children, too. And I don't understand where you're getting that re: Orr from my post - it's not about the Porn (just like cigarette packaging isn't about smoking - I don't smoke, and never have), it's about people having the freedom to make their own choices without artificial barriers put in front of them - even if those barriers are easy to remove.
gerg said:
Sorry, I've only just seen this. Plain cigarette packaging treats people like children, too. And I don't understand where you're getting that re: Orr from my post - it's not about the Porn (just like cigarette packaging isn't about smoking - I don't smoke, and never have), it's about people having the freedom to make their own choices without artificial barriers put in front of them - even if those barriers are easy to remove.
Well, then I guess that's just a fundamental difference in philosophy.
And to go back to Orr, my point is about why having the default set to being "off" isn't considered an "artificial barrier" for those who don't want porn to be readily available, given that they are required to actively change it to filter porn. If the concern is that a default in and of itself acts as an "artificial barrier", then no matter what it is set to one group of people will be disadvantaged. Where did this huge difference between "opting-in" and "opting-out" of something come from?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
"But there are large and uninhabited and desolate areas. Certainly in part of the North East"
Reading comprehension ftw?
Nicktendo86
Member
Some of the uproar is, frankly, absurd. Especially from the archbishop of Canterbury.
I'm not an engineer but no.
Unless your house is made of straw and you live on a fracking site, you aren't going to have any problems.
And yet he's apologised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23510479
But considering how London-centric you are I'm not surprised it flies over your head.
CyclopsRock
Member
Because they're the ones that want their access restricted to something? It's like asking why we allow things to be legal by default rather than illegal - you need a reason to ban something, not a reason not to. Likewise, whether it's porn, how to make a bomb, local prostitute directories etc, the default should be legality, and if something is legal, it makes no sense it make access to that thing obstructed. But, aside from anything, if someone wants access to something stopped, they can simply avoid going on it in the mean time or organise their own solution to filtering it as has been the case for the last 15 years. The opposite isn't true, when done at ISP level.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
No, I was pointing out what you wrote as being wrong. I don't agree with what he said. Just pointing out that you said the word "much" when the Tory said the word "part". Big difference.
I'm all for fracking. Wherever there is gas and it is economically viable, frack baby frack.
And so a reason (however faulty) for this filter has been provided.
Matters surrounding smoking disagree.
And if someone wants access to something granted, they can organise to have the filtering prevented.
Seriously, all this boils down to for me is I don't see how and why the convenience of people who do want to watch porn is considered more important than the convenience of those who don't. (And the opposite holds true as well.) Not having a filter, imo, can be justified in numerous more sound ways than relying on that claim.
CyclopsRock
Member
And those matters make as little sense.
Well, quite aside from the fact that you should need a reason to change something rather than a reason not to (and therefore the people in the no filter camp don't require anything, it's the people in the latter camp that do), for me it simply comes down to a matter of choice. You're right in that neither are hard to circumvent - everyone can get what they want, effectively. But given that everyone can get what they want, but one has to be the default (if we insist on making such a filter, that is - I haven't really seen a good argument in favour of this, but that's a different discussion), I think it's only right that the default is the least restricted, least filtered, least censored one because anything else assumes that the government can provide a better moral compass for you than you can for yourself.
Having a system of law assumes that the government can provide a better moral compass for you than you can yourself.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Cut the bullshit, it was a typical tory boy gobshite moment and you know it.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Just because an area is less inhabited doesn't justify fracking. 'Empty space' is not without merit - fracking is a horrible environmental concern and the manner in which it is being promoted is incredibly disturbing given the Conservatives green push at the last election.
Of course logically-thinking if you are going to do it, an area that is less inhabited and short of jobs makes more sense than other alternatives. What he said makes sense and I always feel a bit uncomfortable when people are shouted down for making correct statements, even if they are not comforting to hear.
Of course logically-thinking if you are going to do it, an area that is less inhabited and short of jobs makes more sense than other alternatives. What he said makes sense and I always feel a bit uncomfortable when people are shouted down for making correct statements, even if they are not comforting to hear.
Yep, I hope they start doing it over here too in Co. Fermanagh as well.
Deaf Spacker
Memb
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Atos are the worst. I have no idea how those people can perform those assessments and not want to kill themselves. They need to be stripped of any government contracts and banned from the country.
CyclopsRock
Member
Only to an extent. The obvious "problem" here when relating it to the rest of law is that in this instance, the perceived perpetrator and victim are the same person. We have laws against violence and theft etc because the victims of those crimes don't consent to it and have no ability to protect themselves. At its very essence, the law is there to protect ones ability to choose (after all, it wouldn't be illegal to allow someone to punch you or to give someone your property - it's the forced nature of GBH and burglary that makes them crimes). That's not something that really makes much sense in this context, because it's about protecting oneself from... oneself. Indeed, filters are the opposite insomuch as they remove that control from you and give it to someone else (namely, the government. Again, I know it's easily circumvented but we're essentially discussing which one has a greater justification for being default - a filter or no filter).
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Manufacturing PMI 54.6
Huge figure. Expectations were for 52.6 at the bank so massive outperformance there. If it can be backed by solid construction and services data tomorrow/Monday then I really do think the economy has reached escape velocity.
Quite a turn around, tbh a lot of people are scratching their heads around here wondering how it has been achieved, especially in manufacturing where fixed costs are much higher than the rest of Europe, but I suppose it says something about the quality of labour and infrastructure in the country that we are growing faster than everyone else, even with higher costs.
Huge figure. Expectations were for 52.6 at the bank so massive outperformance there. If it can be backed by solid construction and services data tomorrow/Monday then I really do think the economy has reached escape velocity.
Quite a turn around, tbh a lot of people are scratching their heads around here wondering how it has been achieved, especially in manufacturing where fixed costs are much higher than the rest of Europe, but I suppose it says something about the quality of labour and infrastructure in the country that we are growing faster than everyone else, even with higher costs.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wow, the report says new orders clocked in a reading of 58.2!
So even going forwards there is definitely strong momentum. We will have to wait for August figures, but I could see Q3 growth coming in at 0.7-0.9% based on these figures and the kind of momentum being implied.
So even going forwards there is definitely strong momentum. We will have to wait for August figures, but I could see Q3 growth coming in at 0.7-0.9% based on these figures and the kind of momentum being implied.
Nicktendo86
Member
Fingers crossed we are over the worst.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Indeed.
In even more good news, it looks like the government might finally start selling off the publicly held stake in Lloyds, and, wait for it, at a fucking profit! The average price paid was 73.5p and shares are over 74p. I think Lloyds will resume the dividend and then the government will sell the first tranche of shares (~10%) for around an 80-85p average.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's amazing. The Yanks made a killing on their bailouts, I hope we do too. RBS is up almost 4% today, but tbf it's been ping-ponging around like mad for the last several months now.
CyclopsRock
Member
BoE upgrading its GDP forecasts this morning, to 1.4% for this year and 2% for next (an increase of 1% in total over the two years). Not only that, but he won't be raising the base rate until another 750k jobs have been created and filled. Basically, Osborne must be creaming his pants, especially after the manufacturing data.
(zomg must be having a long lunch today!)
(zomg must be having a long lunch today!)
Nicktendo86
Member
Whenever he speaks he gets spit stuck on his lips and that is all I can look at, grosses me right out.
CyclopsRock
Member
Bit of a jokey post, but Coffeehouse currently have a post comparing the cost of eggs (As the first thing that spring to mind, of course...) over the last 15 or so years. Under Labour's period in office, the cost of eggs doubled. Under the coalition, they've gone down. This is eggciting news for the Conservatives, with Labour cracking away at their message about the cost of living rising. Not for eggs! This election could go either way, I think.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So much economic news to round up.
Unemployment down by 4k, employment up by 60k, unemployment rate stays at 7.8% because people are re-entering the workforce.
UK composite PMI of over 55 for July, with a lot of business in the pipeline, which points to a composite PMI of over 57 for August(!) which equates to growth of around 0.8% for Q3 even the trend hold for September. Assuming a slow down from the sugar rush summer and the start of school/uni I think we can say a repeat performance of 0.6% for Q3 is guaranteed. Not just that but some of the Q2 data was uprated vs the expectations in the preliminary report, so it could go up to 0.7% for Q2. Barring any ridiculous slowdown in the final quarter, I think we're on course for around 2% growth this year, vs expectations at the start of the year for 0.9% and France (a similarly sized economy on the continent) of a 0.5% forecast.
Today retail sales showed a year on year increase of 3%, which is good and bad news. Good news for retailers who need the respite from lean years. Bad news for long term trends, British people are spending on the credit cards again, we think that spending on credit has risen for the first time in three years over the summer.
Carney will have to restart the QE programme, inflation be dammed, because the UK recovery is pushing Gilt prices down and sending interest rates up too fast for the government to cope with. The pound has also recovered too quickly against the dollar so Carney will want to halt the ascent. $1.55 to the pound is too strong for our manufacturing sector to deal with, we need the pound to drop to at least $1.50 (preferably lower) to be competitive. That or unit labour costs will have to go down, which is a much more painful way of making the adjustment.
Finally, total pay is up YoY by 2.1% which is good news, but it masked the much lower rise of regular pay at 1.1% YoY. Basically all of my banker mates deferred their 2012/13 bonuses to this year to avoid the 50p rate so bonuses grew much quicker than normal for April 2013. Underlying wage growth is around 1.7%, which is still an improvement.
Unemployment down by 4k, employment up by 60k, unemployment rate stays at 7.8% because people are re-entering the workforce.
UK composite PMI of over 55 for July, with a lot of business in the pipeline, which points to a composite PMI of over 57 for August(!) which equates to growth of around 0.8% for Q3 even the trend hold for September. Assuming a slow down from the sugar rush summer and the start of school/uni I think we can say a repeat performance of 0.6% for Q3 is guaranteed. Not just that but some of the Q2 data was uprated vs the expectations in the preliminary report, so it could go up to 0.7% for Q2. Barring any ridiculous slowdown in the final quarter, I think we're on course for around 2% growth this year, vs expectations at the start of the year for 0.9% and France (a similarly sized economy on the continent) of a 0.5% forecast.
Today retail sales showed a year on year increase of 3%, which is good and bad news. Good news for retailers who need the respite from lean years. Bad news for long term trends, British people are spending on the credit cards again, we think that spending on credit has risen for the first time in three years over the summer.
Carney will have to restart the QE programme, inflation be dammed, because the UK recovery is pushing Gilt prices down and sending interest rates up too fast for the government to cope with. The pound has also recovered too quickly against the dollar so Carney will want to halt the ascent. $1.55 to the pound is too strong for our manufacturing sector to deal with, we need the pound to drop to at least $1.50 (preferably lower) to be competitive. That or unit labour costs will have to go down, which is a much more painful way of making the adjustment.
Finally, total pay is up YoY by 2.1% which is good news, but it masked the much lower rise of regular pay at 1.1% YoY. Basically all of my banker mates deferred their 2012/13 bonuses to this year to avoid the 50p rate so bonuses grew much quicker than normal for April 2013. Underlying wage growth is around 1.7%, which is still an improvement.
Adjustment is necessary, manipulating the monetary policies using QE just hides the misallocations the British economy in the short term. Maybe I'm acting Austrian here with my analysis, but I just don't think QE is beneficial for long term purposes with inflation. The government needs to start working on credible training programmes/education programmes instead of relying on the Bank to solve it for them because of their austerity programme. Longer term solution imo is preferable.
Of course, Bank will do whatever they do because they is no inference from the government.
Something like Operation Twist in the USA is preferable, due to already purchasing 375£ of assets, swapping the shorter term bond for longer term bonds. to lower the yields. That would be more effective imo with the current situation.
CyclopsRock
Member
The thing with QE - and the reason I've come round to it a bit - is that it only affects the private sector, really. I know it makes UK Bonds cheaper to buy for the treasury but ultimately that just leads to inflation anyway - so we're at a point whereby low inflation is being tolerated in exchange for the private sector being boosted. One of the big problems with the austerity measures on the continent is that there's nothing to fill its place. Government spending is going down but, without control over their own monetary policy, the European nations are just waiting for a recovery to come with very little power to help it occur. We, however, are able to continue to "stimulate" the economy (even though it is, as you say, somewhat artificially) whilst government expenditure goes "down" (it's not going down, as we know, but it's rising less quickly!) meaning we have something to fill that void, maintaining consumer demand and seeing the private sector to grow whilst the public sector shrinks; Whilst the inflation will be painful and it's not exactly ideal, the rebalancing of private vs public re: contribution to GDP is a step towards more sustainability and only possible thanks to QE, I think.