A place where escape goats go to play
https://www.notplanetrugby.com/
The Money Thorn Treerobmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
They're just absolutely dreadful at messaging. The case to make for cutting that benefit is easy - a lot of pensioners who receive it are better off than workers that don't receive any benefits whatsoever. That is unfair and unnecessary, we're going to cut off those pensioners who can afford to pay for their own heating.robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
Fixed etc.robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public in the demographics who vote in large numbers is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
On fucking e-scooters!!!!Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 1:27 pm ‘War footing’ latest - protestors can ease into Brize Norton and damage planes. Is there any aspect of the State that is serious?
This is one of those decisions that will take years for the full implications to be realised. Some will benefit, some will suffer greatly, and finger pointing and media scrutiny will further muddy the waters.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:26 pm Good news on the assisted dying bill. It's hardly job done, but nonetheless feels a good step in the right direction
I find it interesting that my own mum, who must be in the bottom 20% of pensioners in terms of wealth (dad left sod all, retired, state pension only (maybe some benefits on top, not sure), doesn't own her own home) does not need this payment.sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:42 am One of Labour's whips has resigned over the benefits cuts, which is reassuring.
Starmer and Reeves have badly misread the mood of the parliamentary party on this issue and restoring the winter fuel allowance to pensioners with a £35k income (which many disabled people losing PIP won't even be close to) has only made things worse. They'll probably still get it through, but the rumblings of discontent are growing and a larger rebellion than previously expected is being teased by some of the media.
More than happy to sunset the clause the hell out of this one. Actually I think there's far too little review of previous legislation as a norm, but this one certainly isn't going to be an end point, changes will be needed in both easing and contracting access.shaggy wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:58 pmThis is one of those decisions that will take years for the full implications to be realised. Some will benefit, some will suffer greatly, and finger pointing and media scrutiny will further muddy the waters.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:26 pm Good news on the assisted dying bill. It's hardly job done, but nonetheless feels a good step in the right direction
I am in the camp of this possibly being a major mistake as the barriers to prevent abuse are just not strong enough for those that are vulnerable and the alternative solution of caring during the end is being sidelined.
Is she one of those who usually gives it to charity? I must admit, given how cash strapped many charities are I have some sympathy with the idea of leaving the payment in place so that those who did so can continue to direct it to where it might be better used.C T wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:00 pmI find it interesting that my own mum, who must be in the bottom 20% of pensioners in terms of wealth (dad left sod all, retired, state pension only (maybe some benefits on top, not sure), doesn't own her own home) does not need this payment.sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:42 am One of Labour's whips has resigned over the benefits cuts, which is reassuring.
Starmer and Reeves have badly misread the mood of the parliamentary party on this issue and restoring the winter fuel allowance to pensioners with a £35k income (which many disabled people losing PIP won't even be close to) has only made things worse. They'll probably still get it through, but the rumblings of discontent are growing and a larger rebellion than previously expected is being teased by some of the media.
Just lost a mate to lung cancer, he was lost same age as me. Smoked heavily all his life, over weight and unfit. He knew he was terminal and ended up in Hospice but the last few weeks of life his life was plain awful, he had made all his arrangements, said goodbyes and all he wanted was a large dose of morphine to end his pain and suffering. The hospice was wonderful but couldn't do much more at the end. I have no idea why we put people through this painful end of life when they wish to avoid the pain and we have the means to fulfill their wishes.sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:19 pm I view it as a start. Terminally ill with 6 months left is incredibly narrow and somewhat arbitrary as a cut off. It does nothing for those whose conditions mean that by the time they are within the legal range for approval they may not be of sound enough body or mind to make the choice or by that time they may well have endured a good deal of preventable suffering and indignity they would have much preferred to have been spared.
Thankfully, I've not yet any direct experience of degenerative conditions in my family, all my grandparents all had rather swift deaths from a range of apparently non-hereditary issues, but I've seen up close the prolonged grief in a friend as he lost more and more of his dad to Parkinsons, heard from others the heart-breaking deterioration of grandparents with alzheimers. Should it transpire that I have such a condition I woud want the opportunity to end things more accessibly than a trip to Switzerland before I lost myself, which would likely be long before my end could reliably be predicted as 6 months hence.
Palliative care should be improved, but I don't view the state of it as a counter to being allowed to choose your death. Even the best palliative care does not prevent the deterioration and unnecessary suffering many go through. There's only so much pain medication that can legally be administered after all.
For the JRM's of the world there is of course the option to improve palliative care, access to and service, and more generally social services such people don't want to avail themselves of the option to die, somehow I doubt they'll do anything useful.sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:19 pm I view it as a start. Terminally ill with 6 months left is incredibly narrow and somewhat arbitrary as a cut off. It does nothing for those whose conditions mean that by the time they are within the legal range for approval they may not be of sound enough body or mind to make the choice or by that time they may well have endured a good deal of preventable suffering and indignity they would have much preferred to have been spared.
Thankfully, I've not yet any direct experience of degenerative conditions in my family, all my grandparents all had rather swift deaths from a range of apparently non-hereditary issues, but I've seen up close the prolonged grief in a friend as he lost more and more of his dad to Parkinsons, heard from others the heart-breaking deterioration of grandparents with alzheimers. Should it transpire that I have such a condition I woud want the opportunity to end things more accessibly than a trip to Switzerland before I lost myself, which would likely be long before my end could reliably be predicted as 6 months hence.
Palliative care should be improved, but I don't view the state of it as a counter to being allowed to choose your death. Even the best palliative care does not prevent the deterioration and unnecessary suffering many go through. There's only so much pain medication that can legally be administered after all.
That's why mandatory voting is the key - Gen Z and Millenials outnumber Boomers and they just voted against the Boomer-friendly Political party out of Oz Politics for several generationsHal Jordan wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:29 pmFixed etc.robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public in the demographics who vote in large numbers is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
Lol - you're having a laugh aren't you? No politician will ever remove a Pensioner's benefit. It's literal career suicide with non-compulsory votingsockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:20 pmThey're just absolutely dreadful at messaging. The case to make for cutting that benefit is easy - a lot of pensioners who receive it are better off than workers that don't receive any benefits whatsoever. That is unfair and unnecessary, we're going to cut off those pensioners who can afford to pay for their own heating.robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
You have to respect people’s rights not to vote too, mandatory voting has never been seen as fully democratic and it’s only really Oz that uses it that doesn’t have a history of bent & unstable governments. It’s not such a big leap from that to mandatory voting for who you are told to, like North Korea.mat the expat wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:13 amThat's why mandatory voting is the key - Gen Z and Millenials outnumber Boomers and they just voted against the Boomer-friendly Political party out of Oz Politics for several generationsHal Jordan wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:29 pmFixed etc.robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 11:27 am It's going to be really difficult for Labour to thread the needle on this. The great British public in the demographics who vote in large numbers is fairly adamant on keeping every single boomer benefit while also not wanting to pay any additional taxes.
Demographics!
Well, you answered your own pointYeeb wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:24 am
You have to respect people’s rights not to vote too, mandatory voting has never been seen as fully democratic and it’s only really Oz that uses it that doesn’t have a history of bent & unstable governments. It’s not such a big leap from that to mandatory voting for who you are told to, like North Korea.
However I would welcome a measure such as if you don’t vote, you are not allowed to post on social media
Pretty much anywhere but Oz, with North Korea at the top of the list as they only have one box to tick on the ballot. South American countries have a long tradition of rigged elections, or choices between El presidente cousin #12 or El presidente cousin #13mat the expat wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:45 amWell, you answered your own pointYeeb wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:24 am
You have to respect people’s rights not to vote too, mandatory voting has never been seen as fully democratic and it’s only really Oz that uses it that doesn’t have a history of bent & unstable governments. It’s not such a big leap from that to mandatory voting for who you are told to, like North Korea.
However I would welcome a measure such as if you don’t vote, you are not allowed to post on social media
Absolutely don't vote, but you have Zero right to comment on anything related to politics in that cycle
And where exactly is it seen as not democratic?
One box to tick isn't mandatory voting.Yeeb wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:00 am
Pretty much anywhere but Oz, with North Korea at the top of the list as they only have one box to tick on the ballot. South American countries have a long tradition of rigged elections, or choices between El presidente cousin #12 or El presidente cousin #13
As for enforcing mandatory voting in the Uk, well if its fines , it would surely fall more on the poor than the rich which isn’t exactly fair or just either. It’s as bad an idea as it would be than rather than giving people a vote, they have to answer a 50’qiestion quiz and let the computer decide who you would vote for based on policies.
That's they key, just turn up. If you then don't vote or somehow spoil your ballot so it goes. And we do need more people to turn up, certainly general elections, perhaps even local elections. Not sure I'd do it for mayors and police commissioners, those have so little public engagement I'd be open to just binning the roles, certainly as electable positions.mat the expat wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:47 amOne box to tick isn't mandatory voting.Yeeb wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:00 am
Pretty much anywhere but Oz, with North Korea at the top of the list as they only have one box to tick on the ballot. South American countries have a long tradition of rigged elections, or choices between El presidente cousin #12 or El presidente cousin #13
As for enforcing mandatory voting in the Uk, well if its fines , it would surely fall more on the poor than the rich which isn’t exactly fair or just either. It’s as bad an idea as it would be than rather than giving people a vote, they have to answer a 50’qiestion quiz and let the computer decide who you would vote for based on policies.
And to solve your Fine issue, use the Swiss system
Besides, in Oz it's $20 if you don't turn up - you don't even have to vote, just get your name ticked off the rolls.
We need more Startship Troopers-style voting
Another way of looking at it is if you can’t be bothered to vote, then you deserve whatever you get. Brexit hardly registers on the lives of those who wouldn’t vote in GE or referendums , they wouldn’t know or appreciate it if it didRhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:56 amThat's they key, just turn up. If you then don't vote or somehow spoil your ballot so it goes. And we do need more people to turn up, certainly general elections, perhaps even local elections. Not sure I'd do it for mayors and police commissioners, those have so little public engagement I'd be open to just binning the roles, certainly as electable positions.mat the expat wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:47 amOne box to tick isn't mandatory voting.Yeeb wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:00 am
Pretty much anywhere but Oz, with North Korea at the top of the list as they only have one box to tick on the ballot. South American countries have a long tradition of rigged elections, or choices between El presidente cousin #12 or El presidente cousin #13
As for enforcing mandatory voting in the Uk, well if its fines , it would surely fall more on the poor than the rich which isn’t exactly fair or just either. It’s as bad an idea as it would be than rather than giving people a vote, they have to answer a 50’qiestion quiz and let the computer decide who you would vote for based on policies.
And to solve your Fine issue, use the Swiss system
Besides, in Oz it's $20 if you don't turn up - you don't even have to vote, just get your name ticked off the rolls.
We need more Startship Troopers-style voting
I don't love making turning up to vote mandatory, it is authoritarian. But I dislike it less than only a third of the electorate voting, even in a country where people are thick enough to vote for Brexit
I happened to be in Westminster the evening before the vote and was having a drink with a few MP's. Each one of them had really agonised about the vote, most had comprehensively talked with their constituents and all had spent a lot of time researching the subject, it was a really tough decision for all of them. It was being taken very seriously and all were very relieved it was a free vote.shaggy wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:58 pmThis is one of those decisions that will take years for the full implications to be realised. Some will benefit, some will suffer greatly, and finger pointing and media scrutiny will further muddy the waters.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:26 pm Good news on the assisted dying bill. It's hardly job done, but nonetheless feels a good step in the right direction
I am in the camp of this possibly being a major mistake as the barriers to prevent abuse are just not strong enough for those that are vulnerable and the alternative solution of caring during the end is being sidelined.
Reform are mulling (or possibly even have) announcing they'd kill the assisted dying bill if they win the next GE, because looking at their split in the recent vote, 2 for and 3 against, FagRage sees a clear mandate to do whatever he wants and everyone else can fuck offSlick wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:57 amI happened to be in Westminster the evening before the vote and was having a drink with a few MP's. Each one of them had really agonised about the vote, most had comprehensively talked with their constituents and all had spent a lot of time researching the subject, it was a really tough decision for all of them. It was being taken very seriously and all were very relieved it was a free vote.shaggy wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:58 pmThis is one of those decisions that will take years for the full implications to be realised. Some will benefit, some will suffer greatly, and finger pointing and media scrutiny will further muddy the waters.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:26 pm Good news on the assisted dying bill. It's hardly job done, but nonetheless feels a good step in the right direction
I am in the camp of this possibly being a major mistake as the barriers to prevent abuse are just not strong enough for those that are vulnerable and the alternative solution of caring during the end is being sidelined.
On another note, most MP's mingle well and have good cross part friendships. Except Reform, who were sat in a corner on their own.
Which "what I say, goes" is exactly what led to the shambolic fall of TrussRhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:35 am Point being FagRage takes no heed of what others in his party that he owns thinks. One could say Labour and Reform were equally split, just with Labour circa 60% for and Reform 60% against, but really Reform could have been just 20% against and FagRage would still be happy to announce the policy and then expect everyone to fall in line with the Dear Leader
As long as he, his backers and whoever he hasn't fallen out with this week make out like bandits off the chaos, he won't care a jot.tabascoboy wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 11:19 amWhich "what I say, goes" is exactly what led to the shambolic fall of TrussRhubarb & Custard wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 10:35 am Point being FagRage takes no heed of what others in his party that he owns thinks. One could say Labour and Reform were equally split, just with Labour circa 60% for and Reform 60% against, but really Reform could have been just 20% against and FagRage would still be happy to announce the policy and then expect everyone to fall in line with the Dear Leader
I appreciate that it comes from a good place of trying to help the black population feel more accepted, but the excessive mythologising is the same rejection of fact that we criticise when it emerges from political groups we disagree with.Hugo wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 2:30 pm The myth making around Windrush seems to get more ahistorical and frankly ridiculous with each passing year.
A modest number of people arrived and did the jobs that the British working classes did, albeit without the fanfare. Starmer then credits them with "laying the foundation of modern Britain". It's a classic case of a romanticised narrative trumping the quantitative reality. The post WWII Irish diaspora would have been just as significant in the rebuilding of Britain, post WWII and certainly were in terms of numbers.
Did they make a contribution? Of course but the idea that they "laid the foundation of modern Britain" is just far fetched and I think inaccurate history does no-one any favours.
Both the Irish and the Windrush generations contributed far, far more to the UK culturally than the bare numbers that came here would suggest. Pound for pound they both helped contribute to the wider UK society we all benefit from now, ditto the Indian/Pakistani communities, the post WW2 polish and Italian communities or the Europeans who came here when we were in the EU. I'm not sure it's particularly constructive to be building a 'league table' of who contributed more or less to UK society but accept that they have all added to the mix we have and enjoy!sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 3:08 pmI appreciate that it comes from a good place of trying to help the black population feel more accepted, but the excessive mythologising is the same rejection of fact that we criticise when it emerges from political groups we disagree with.Hugo wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 2:30 pm The myth making around Windrush seems to get more ahistorical and frankly ridiculous with each passing year.
A modest number of people arrived and did the jobs that the British working classes did, albeit without the fanfare. Starmer then credits them with "laying the foundation of modern Britain". It's a classic case of a romanticised narrative trumping the quantitative reality. The post WWII Irish diaspora would have been just as significant in the rebuilding of Britain, post WWII and certainly were in terms of numbers.
Did they make a contribution? Of course but the idea that they "laid the foundation of modern Britain" is just far fetched and I think inaccurate history does no-one any favours.
Yes, and in an era where people increasingly get their political news and opinion from outside the mainstream it just discredits the ‘sensibles’ further as they are once again quite clearly making stuff up and they are getting called on itsockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 3:08 pmI appreciate that it comes from a good place of trying to help the black population feel more accepted, but the excessive mythologising is the same rejection of fact that we criticise when it emerges from political groups we disagree with.Hugo wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 2:30 pm The myth making around Windrush seems to get more ahistorical and frankly ridiculous with each passing year.
A modest number of people arrived and did the jobs that the British working classes did, albeit without the fanfare. Starmer then credits them with "laying the foundation of modern Britain". It's a classic case of a romanticised narrative trumping the quantitative reality. The post WWII Irish diaspora would have been just as significant in the rebuilding of Britain, post WWII and certainly were in terms of numbers.
Did they make a contribution? Of course but the idea that they "laid the foundation of modern Britain" is just far fetched and I think inaccurate history does no-one any favours.
Yeah, don't want a league table, because we're fucking winning that.dpedin wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 3:33 pmBoth the Irish and the Windrush generations contributed far, far more to the UK culturally than the bare numbers that came here would suggest. Pound for pound they both helped contribute to the wider UK society we all benefit from now, ditto the Indian/Pakistani communities, the post WW2 polish and Italian communities or the Europeans who came here when we were in the EU. I'm not sure it's particularly constructive to be building a 'league table' of who contributed more or less to UK society but accept that they have all added to the mix we have and enjoy!sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 3:08 pmI appreciate that it comes from a good place of trying to help the black population feel more accepted, but the excessive mythologising is the same rejection of fact that we criticise when it emerges from political groups we disagree with.Hugo wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 2:30 pm The myth making around Windrush seems to get more ahistorical and frankly ridiculous with each passing year.
A modest number of people arrived and did the jobs that the British working classes did, albeit without the fanfare. Starmer then credits them with "laying the foundation of modern Britain". It's a classic case of a romanticised narrative trumping the quantitative reality. The post WWII Irish diaspora would have been just as significant in the rebuilding of Britain, post WWII and certainly were in terms of numbers.
Did they make a contribution? Of course but the idea that they "laid the foundation of modern Britain" is just far fetched and I think inaccurate history does no-one any favours.
Probably don’t break into a military base and damage the aircraft then. Exceptionally fortunate they didn’t wind up getting shot and should count themselves lucky for thatI like neeps wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 5:42 pm Very Conservative of Labour to be prescribing Palestine Action. Continued decaying of democratic values.
The security set up is tin pot, breaking onto a military base is exceptionally fucking stupid to put it mildly and it’s hard to see what else the government could do in response.sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:21 pm Proscribing a group because they've embarassed your shoddy security standards is a bit tin pot.
Arrest and charge individuals for whichever laws they broke, but putting the entirety of PA into the same legal category as actual terrorist groups is beyond absurd. If a handful of RSPB members decide to do something exceptionally daft in its name I wouldn't expect the entire organisation to suffer legal ramifications.Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 7:25 pmThe security set up is tin pot, breaking onto a military base is exceptionally fucking stupid to put it mildly and it’s hard to see what else the government could do in response.sockwithaticket wrote: Mon Jun 23, 2025 6:21 pm Proscribing a group because they've embarassed your shoddy security standards is a bit tin pot.