Politics Thread!

[Dio]

Been a problem brewing for the Republicans for quite a while, especially since the Tea Party mentalists came along; to win the nomination, you have to be so far out to the right that it's hard to win the moderate vote in the ensuing election.

[pogo]

It only seems to be getting worse for them. FFS Democrats managed to put a black man in the Whitehouse. Given the still significant racist element in US society that was quite an achievement. Next time round it will almost certainly be Hilary Clinton who will appeal more broadly to women and whites while still getting 70-90% of minority votes due to Republican extremism. At the same time the country is getting less white and more demographically diverse, which also favours Democrats.

[pogo]

There have been ammendment's to the constitution before now, could happen again, if there's the political will, but it does seem this is going to stay for a while.

The Dukes of Hazzard will be a different show now.

Amending the constitution is hard. Very hard. It needs 2/3 majorities in both houses and ratifying by 3/4 of states, which they are under no obligation to do. There are a few amendments still awaiting the approval of 3/4 of states, the oldest of which date back more than 200 years.

And they would have to contend with this: it happened as it was already the law in most states and has majority support. Like previous similar judgments based on the 14th amendment, outlawing bans on interracial marriage and outlawing racial segregation in schools, which gained popular support alongside a constitutional justification. Absent a major change in public opinion its hard to see how they could amend the constitutional to reverse it.

[merman]

So, start the countdown to General Cameron sending troops back to the Middle East...

But happy to hear that Lancashire County Council turned down the second fracking application.

[venusian]

So, start the countdown to General Cameron sending troops back to the Middle East...
But happy to hear that Lancashire County Council turned down the second fracking application.

There, in two lines, is a knot that remains to be unraveled.

[(o)(o)]

Can anyone blame Tory voters for being shy - who wants to be associated with level of cuntishness ?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ld-poverty

[(o)(o)]

Bonus !

[pogo]

Can anyone blame Tory voters for being shy - who wants to be associated with level of cuntishness ?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ld-poverty

The old target set up by Tony Blair, based on the percentage of households below average income, will continue to be published as a government statistic but will no longer be seen as a target.

But that is a stupid way to measure poverty. If you define poverty as being the % below average income then you will always have poor people as some people are always below average. The only way to avoid this is to have complete redistribution, so no-one is below average as everyone is average. Which may sound attractive until you realise it’s been tried already in e.g. communist countries and failed every time.

Iain Duncan Smith to remove relative poverty measure enshrined in 2010 legislation that required eradication of child poverty by 2020

So it’s a not even a Law introduced by Labour that they did anything about. It’s a law introduced by them just weeks before they were kicked out of office knowing full well it would be hard to achieve because of the recession that was in full swing, as a trap for whoever inherited their economic mess.

[(o)(o)]

That is not the problem with IDS policy change you mupput.

Nevertheless, let's entertain you..

"I want this message to go out loud and clear: the Conservative Party recognises, will measure and will act on relative poverty.

Poverty is relative – and those who pretend otherwise are wrong."

David Cameron, Scarman lecture, 22 November 2006

[(o)(o)]

Now that I read on..

So it’s a not even a Law introduced by Labour that they did anything about. It’s a law introduced by them just weeks before they were kicked out of office knowing full well it would be hard to achieve because of the recession that was in full swing, as a trap for whoever inherited their economic mess.

Aha! So THATs why IDS is throttling little kids.

It's LABOURS FAULT !

[pogo]

Yes, I know the Guardian got the policy badly wrong. They do seem to have a problem fact-checking what they print. But the actual target is little better: the 60% of median income. the problem with it is best illustrated by the recession. Poverty by that measure fell during the recession. Not because the poor got better off – they suffered like the rest of us – but incomes fell more in real terms, with rising unemployment and the wages of many in work frozen.

Maybe it was that that persuaded the conservatives of the wrongness of the measure, or maybe something else. Whatever the reason they are right to abandon such a flawed measure. Rather our leaders are able to change their minds in the face of such evidence than stick dogmatically to the beliefs they held a decade ago.

[merman]

Yes, I know the Guardian got the policy badly wrong. They do seem to have a problem fact-checking what they print. But the actual target is little better: the 60% of median income. the problem with it is best illustrated by the recession. Poverty by that measure fell during the recession. Not because the poor got better off – they suffered like the rest of us – but incomes fell more in real terms, with rising unemployment and the wages of many in work frozen.

Maybe it was that that persuaded the conservatives of the wrongness of the measure, or maybe something else. Whatever the reason they are right to abandon such a flawed measure. Rather our leaders are able to change their minds in the face of such evidence than stick dogmatically to the beliefs they held a decade ago.

There is an argument there, sure.
But do you think it is coincidence the number of children living in poverty WENT UP to 2.5 MILLION in the last year when our economy was supposedly recovering and the fastest growing in the world, as Cameron repeatedly said?

That sort of rise would be seen as politically damaging so what better way to downplay than to make a speech two days before the figure emerged saying you wanted to change the way child poverty is measured?


Oh, and if you want to see another "change of mind", remember Cameron said in 2009 he was against a third runway at Heathrow - no ifs, no buts.

[pogo]

The problem with the measure, of the number of households on below 60% of median income is it can go up for two reasons. Because more people became poor and so fell below the 60% threshold. Or because incomes rose further up the distribution, raising the median. That’s why it can indicate falling poverty when all common sense tells you its rising, such as in a recession.



Basing it on the median is flawed in another way. The median is precisely the income of the 50th percentile. Half the country earns more, half less. But this means it takes no account of distribution. If e.g. city bonuses suddenly balloon and raise all their incomes by 50% the median doesn’t change at all, as they were and are in the top half. It’s only movement around the medium, currently around £26,000, which moves it.

[pogo]

Oh, and if you want to see another "change of mind", remember Cameron said in 2009 he was against a third runway at Heathrow - no ifs, no buts.

Well, again, if you have to go back so far he can hardly be held to it now. That’s presumably something he promised before the last election and stuck to for that parliament. Fact is though it’s a long overdue decision. My own choice would be the one put forward by Boris Johnson, on the Thames Estuary. It would allow for more capacity, adding two runways at a stroke. It would generate far more jobs and growth. Far fewer people would have reason to object, limiting the scope for delays and adjustments, so it would likely be done sooner.

As it is we are likely to get only one new runway, at one of two already overstretched airports, long after its actually needed. Schiphol, de Gaulle etc. must all be very happy that were are sending so much business their way. For more than a decade the best option for flying from the NE, Newcastle in particular, to much of the world (e.g. all of Asia) has been via one or other of the major continental hubs – it’s just always cheaper than BA and London.

[VNVObit]

Not to be outdone by IDS it's now Osborne's turn
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ge-osborne