Politics Thread!

[tufty]

It’s not ideological blindness: about half the population think how the BBC is paid for should be changed

Not that I buy any of that IQ stuff, but half the population are intellectually subnormal.

[zip accident]

Not that I buy any of that IQ stuff, but half the population are intellectually subnormal.

Nope:

I think the statistical definition of normal is something like within one SD (standard deviation) of the average, that's your 34% there, so 68% are normal, and it's below those that you find the people with problems, getting more severe as the IQ goes lower.

[merman]

Osborne is playing politics with the BBC. Ironic, in the week they called for the next BBC political to be impartial, replacing Nick Robinson (who just happens to have been a member of the Conservative group at Oxford...).

If Osborne really wanted to make savings in the benefits budget, it should come from the largest slice - pensions and pensioner perks. Shifting responsibility for over-75s license fees to the BBC is illogical and damaging.

[gumboot]

I like how the numbers don't quite add up.

[(o)(o)]

Tories sink to new levels of depravity

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ie-mp-says

[tufty]

Not that I buy any of that IQ stuff, but half the population are intellectually subnormal.

Nope:

I think the statistical definition of normal is something like within one SD (standard deviation) of the average, that's your 34% there, so 68% are normal, and it's below those that you find the people with problems, getting more severe as the IQ goes lower.

It's my job to pick up on people using words to mean what they don't mean, you bastard!

Good catch. Ironically enough, my initial thought was to use "have below average intelligence".

* note : zip accident may not actually be illegitimate

[(o)(o)]

Osborne is playing politics with the BBC.

Turns out the BBC absorbing costs of 75s free licenses is a welfare saving.

Once again the Conservative Party delivers on an electoral pledge!

They pledge to cut welfare by £12bn, so naturally voters fully expected the BBC to have it's benefits cut.

[Dio]

It's quite a wheeze, this reducing the benefits bill by passing it on to someone else. Mind, in the case of the tax credits, possibly overdue.

[merman]

It's quite a wheeze, this reducing the benefits bill by passing it on to someone else. Mind, in the case of the tax credits, possibly overdue.

The principle of "not taking tax and having to pay some back" is sound.

The way the Conservatives are going to do it is wrong and will push thousands of families into poverty.

Oh, and Osborne lied to the public more than once.
He repeatedly said the benefits cap would go down from £26,000 to £23,00.
That applies to London. Elsewhere it goes down to £20,000 - in other words cutting a huge percentage of some families' incomes.

[Cloudane]

I see Cameron is still firm on his war against encryption, too. It's ambitious - a lot of people will be happy as it'll eradicate Apple from the country (last I heard they have no intention of backing down on their pro-privacy stance), but I imagine a lot of well loved businesses will leave as well. It'll take a bit of enforcing - every packet will surely have to be checked to see if it might be an encryption system and then they'll have to try and arrest the correct individual at the IP address. More likely it becomes one of those laws that is effectively unenforceable but businesses/organisations follow it anyway, anyone who's anyone just illegally carries on and it turns into an unholy mess.

Tories sink to new levels of depravity

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ie-mp-says

FFS

On a positive note I imagine the current government will be quite happy to look into the right for those with serious illnesses to die early rather than going through prolonged suffering. It'd be a much needed relief for those who need it, and would be a win/win from the Tory perspective as it means they can legally euthanise those who are no longer (in their opinion) of a benefit to society and save on the welfare bill. But does also raise the question of whether they'd be pressured into it, which unusually has me empathising a bit with the "keep em alive" crowd. The things they push you to..

[Ollie]

Tories sink to new levels of depravity

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ie-mp-says

Notable there is the response from the DWP - presented with evidence that this is happening, their response is not to say, "That shouldn't be happening, we'll look into it," but simply to state that it isn't happening. We should be used to it by now, I suppose: a blank refusal to face up to, do anything about, or even acknowledge the negative impact that their policies are having on vulnerable people.

[merman]

The "living wage" is not a living wage. End of discussion.

Public sector pay rise of only 1% for another four years is so damn hypocritical when MPs will "reluctantly" get 10% this year.

[Wudzi]

The headline figure will be that it's over 9 quid now, which looks like a drastic rise. The problem is that's not for 5 years. Minimum wage would likely have been around 8 quid anyone in that time. So you're only talking about a fairly modest increase that will fuck people over without tax credits. All that's important is the household income you have and I cannot see how low earners are going to be better off, particularly single parents working part time hours.

[VNVObit]

The headline figure will be that it's over 9 quid now, which looks like a drastic rise. The problem is that's not for 5 years. Minimum wage would likely have been around 8 quid anyone in that time. So you're only talking about a fairly modest increase that will fuck people over without tax credits. All that's important is the household income you have and I cannot see how low earners are going to be better off, particularly single parents working part time hours.

It's actually well below the living wage which is

The current UK Living Wage is £7.85 an hour
The current London Living Wage is £9.15 an hour

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage

The comparison is the proposed £7.20 and not £9 as that is by the end of parliament

[pogo]

We’ll see how it works out. Can’t remember the exact details but there was something about it being set by and independent body to a particular level such as 60% of median income, making the £9.00 just be a guess.

The usual objection to such measures is they cost jobs, and the budget predicts the cost here will be 60,000. Not a massive amount but 60,000 people who would otherwise be in work but for the higher minimum wage going to those in work. That’s my main objection to such measures, and it’s interesting the chancellor has accepted that as a cost of this policy. He may hope that other measures such as the improvements in the personal allowance and benefits cuts will make work ever more attractive and so keep unemployment down. Or he may even be providing cover for himself or a successor, to cut the minimum wage again to save jobs, the next time we have a recession and rising unemployment.