The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
Brexistentialism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Koumei
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12624
Location: South Ausfailia

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:
More broadly, immigration causing downward pressure on wages, immigration increasing health care costs (a particular problem in the US, which allows elderly immigrants medicare even if they've never paid into the system), immigration increasing housing costs in desirable areas with high job density, these are all things that exist. Their overall magnitude in terms of a national economy is debatable, and often overblown, but they do happen. Worrying about those things, or about sheer population pressure on environmental resources, or other factors, might all lead a person to want to restrict immigration and none of those motives are racist.


Worrying about them and assuming immigration is the problem is racist, or at the very least, stupid enough that you shouldn't be allowed to turn your ideas and beliefs into policy.

So fixing wages is more about strengthening unions and slapping the piss out of big corporations and saying "Guess what, dickface? Higher minimum wages and no 'apprentice' loopholes and 'child wage' bullshit!" Or instituting basic universal income and seeing what wins out between "People are still willing to work shitty jobs for tiny money because that's a tiny amount extra" and "Businesses have to actually compete with the minimum".

Health care is more about the government choosing to invest more money (and pay for it by, for instance, taxing the balls off the richest people), or taking a more hardline approach when negotiating for the costs of things.

Housing is more about building more houses and bursting house price bubbles (we could really do with that here and we have tiny immigration). Force "multiple home owners" to fill those houses, even holiday homes need people living in them and so on. For instance it's a major problem in Sweden, where the government can't force contractors to build mass housing (unless there's a state of war, where they do gain that power. They should just declare war on someone and not mobilise, just to gain that authority), and the contractors don't particularly want to build mass housing because other people offer more money for individual big houses and shit. Alternatively you could solve it by getting a hammer and killing all the elderly (also my proposed solution for ending all the racist/right wing voting), but apparently there are laws against that.

Immigration isn't the problem, and ending it won't stop the problem, and people who say it will are racists or gullible fools.
_________________
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26686

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mechalich wrote:
More broadly, immigration causing downward pressure on wages, immigration increasing health care costs (a particular problem in the US, which allows elderly immigrants medicare even if they've never paid into the system), immigration increasing housing costs in desirable areas with high job density, these are all things that exist.


No.

These are not all things that exist. These are all contingent events that could exist given the proper situation. But there's no evidence that they exist now. More workers increases the supply of labor, depressing wages. But more consumers increases the demand for labor, increasing wages. Every immigrant is both a worker and a consumer, and whether they individually lead to net increases or decreases in wage pressure is highly contingent on other factors. In the UK specifically, evidence for immigrants leading to net negative wage pressure is sorely lacking.

More people means more use of healthcare resources, but more wage earners means more people paying taxes (or buying insurance, for those non-UK countries which lack an NHS). Every immigrant is both using healthcare resources and increasing the amount of resources that the healthcare system has available. Whether the healthcare system is overall stronger or weaker for their presence is something you cannot answer without more information. In the UK specifically, immigrants are a younger cohort than native British people and have a higher percentage of trained medical professionals. Not only do the immigrants of the UK pay more in taxes than they cost to treat, but they provide more man-hours of medical professional work than they use up. By kind of a lot, actually.

The economic arguments about immigration in the UK are economically illiterate. The specific problems that reducing immigration is supposed to address would be made worse in a very obvious, very direct fashion.

Mechalich wrote:
Simply wanting to take 330,000 per year and turn it into 100,000 per year, not inherently racist.


But what's the argument for lowering immigration to some arbitrary number that isn't "protecting the sanctity of White British Blood"? Because that's a totally racist argument, and there doesn't seem to be a backup argument that makes sense.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maglag
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Excellent posts Koumei and Frank! Thumb Yellow
_________________
FrankTrollman wrote:

Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.


Last edited by maglag on Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hyzmarca
Prince


Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:

Mechalich wrote:
Simply wanting to take 330,000 per year and turn it into 100,000 per year, not inherently racist.


But what's the argument for lowering immigration to some arbitrary number that isn't "protecting the sanctity of White British Blood"? Because that's a totally racist argument, and there doesn't seem to be a backup argument that makes sense.

-Frank


The thing is, no one is really complaining about Indian and Pakistani doctors in this case. They're complaining about Polish immigrants. Heck, leaving the EU would do nothing to slow down immigration from India and Pakistan, because those are Commonwealth members and their status wouldn't change remotely. But it does drastically slow down immigration from Poland.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhoneLobster
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6199

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Koumei wrote:
Housing is more about building more houses and bursting house price bubbles (we could really do with that here and we have tiny immigration).

Two minor corrections here.

1) Australia does not have a housing shortage... it... er... has a housing shortage?

The one time anyone compared our population growth figures to our residential construction figures, you know, just to maybe check if all the stuff people making money speculating on housing prices were saying about needing to build more houses to speculate on house people and drive down prices was true...

...it turned out we actually seem to have more than enough housing out there. We're just being assholes about it and shuffling around an ALARMING number of ALARMINGLY expensive houses while a growing number of poor end up homeless in a country with a chronic shortage of public housing. You know. The cheap sort of housing no one wants to invest in or have their investment be devalued as.

Hell we have actual government owned public housing developments being bulldozed and sold to private developers to build new housing to "drive down prices"... and by the looks of the figures some LARGE portion of THAT housing then apparently ends up empty? Yep. The Adults are totally in charge...

2) While Australian immigration isn't huge it has interestingly grown massively in recent years.

One of the stranger things about our descent into racist fascism is that the more brutally we bully and oppress brown people who DARE to turn up in BOATS, (those monsters)... the more this apparently allows the racist contingent in our country to be almost completely appeased and distracted from how we have rapidly increased pretty much every other form of migration into the country. Including the "fuck you guys we will let you come here, work you for years for below our standard wages then kick you the fuck out again" category of migration, but also including real proper normal migration.

Turns out most racist voters are easily distracted, can only focus on one thing at once, and don't really pay attention to the full details of policy and stuff. WHO KNEW?


...

But then we suddenly cracked down on working backpackers because... no one really knows do they? I mean it's been a real headscratcher for the general community, the tourism industry, the fruit picking industry, and well, I think even a lot of the Racists are a bit confused by that one...
_________________
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by PhoneLobster on Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:05 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3289
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
Mechalich wrote:
More broadly, immigration causing downward pressure on wages, immigration increasing health care costs (a particular problem in the US, which allows elderly immigrants medicare even if they've never paid into the system), immigration increasing housing costs in desirable areas with high job density, these are all things that exist.


No.

These are not all things that exist. These are all contingent events that could exist given the proper situation. But there's no evidence that they exist now. More workers increases the supply of labor, depressing wages. But more consumers increases the demand for labor, increasing wages. Every immigrant is both a worker and a consumer, and whether they individually lead to net increases or decreases in wage pressure is highly contingent on other factors. In the UK specifically, evidence for immigrants leading to net negative wage pressure is sorely lacking.

More people means more use of healthcare resources, but more wage earners means more people paying taxes (or buying insurance, for those non-UK countries which lack an NHS). Every immigrant is both using healthcare resources and increasing the amount of resources that the healthcare system has available. Whether the healthcare system is overall stronger or weaker for their presence is something you cannot answer without more information. In the UK specifically, immigrants are a younger cohort than native British people and have a higher percentage of trained medical professionals. Not only do the immigrants of the UK pay more in taxes than they cost to treat, but they provide more man-hours of medical professional work than they use up. By kind of a lot, actually.

The economic arguments about immigration in the UK are economically illiterate. The specific problems that reducing immigration is supposed to address would be made worse in a very obvious, very direct fashion.

Mechalich wrote:
Simply wanting to take 330,000 per year and turn it into 100,000 per year, not inherently racist.


But what's the argument for lowering immigration to some arbitrary number that isn't "protecting the sanctity of White British Blood"? Because that's a totally racist argument, and there doesn't seem to be a backup argument that makes sense.

-Frank
Are there any major Leftwing politicians pushing the "Immigrants are provably better for our economy" angle? Are there any actual numbers on how much the recent increase in foreign born unskilled laborers has actually increased demand for unskilled labor? Are there any numbers on how much it is costing the UK (for the sake of this thread) to deal with the major influx of immigrants vs projected future profits? I ask because I legitimately don't know and haven't seen any. If what you're saying is that there is every benefit from taking in what seems to be a significantly larger amount of immigrants then I'd assume the left could easily pull a bunch of current (or recent) statistics and studies to put the people's fears to rest. However, in all the 'debates' over immigration the only rallying cry I've seen are people assuming anyone who wants to put a stop to rampant immigration are racist. Not just misinformed, mistaken, or perhaps just personally negatively impacted somehow. Just racist. All of them. Where's the nuanced approach to informing what may be misinformed citizens?

I don't really know whether or not 'your' observations are even true (which is why I'd like to see some actual numbers backing up your claims) but I'm willing to believe that given a well presented, reasoned argument that 'changes to immigration won't do what you think it'll do' will work wonders where calling people a bunch of racists won't. Overall, both in this very thread and abroad, I've only seen people accuse other people of being racist and when you decide to call about half your population racist instead of addressing their concerns it really becomes difficult to get them to listen and you want people to listen. It's easier to get people to consider how they might be mistaken when you're not calling them racists at each and every opportunity both in the mainstream and social media. That seems to drive more people to listen to people who aren't calling them racists.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!


Last edited by MGuy on Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 11866

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Looks like Theresa May is heating up for the PM job. So at this point, it looks like the UK will almost certainly leave, and pass some legislation quick, since the two options look to be a Leave and an immigrant hating Thatcher wannabe who will do anything she can to get rid of the filthy immigrants as the Remain candidate.

Like I said before, I am supremely confident that she will fuck up the country pretty hard and hopefully this will trigger the next election to be less stupid, on account oh how goddam terrible it will be. Not that this stopped people from electing Tories because the country was in a mess from the Tories in the last election.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26686

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Economists, politicians, and pundits make the case that immigration is a net positive all the time. The media doesn't report on it much, because it makes the entire frame of the conversation they like to use sound bloomin retarded, but it certainly exists. Even Conservatives occasionally blurt out a moment of truthiness and admit that:

Conservative MP Nicky Morgan wrote:
If you come across an immigrant in the NHS, they are more likely to be treating you than in front of you in the queue.


The facts aren't hidden. The leader of the Labour Party was very forthright with the facts, as given here. The problem is that the press doesn't like that fact and refuses to discuss it. In fact, when Corbyn said that:

Jeremy Corbyn wrote:
Migrants helped our economic growth and had boosted the NHS, the social services and education in the UK.


The supposedly "neutral" BBC ran the headline:

BBC wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn says EU free movement means no immigration limit


Because the fourth estate in the UK is actually incredibly xenophobic, and when people present simple factual reports of the economic benefits of immigration, the press just gibbers about how Johnny Foreigner is coming to rape your womenfolk. And in the case of the Murdoch owned papers, that's not even an exaggeration.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mechalich
Knight-Baron


Joined: 04 Nov 2015
Posts: 572

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
I don't really know whether or not 'your' observations are even true (which is why I'd like to see some actual numbers backing up your claims) but I'm willing to believe that given a well presented, reasoned argument that 'changes to immigration won't do what you think it'll do' will work wonders where calling people a bunch of racists won't. Overall, both in this very thread and abroad, I've only seen people accuse other people of being racist and when you decide to call about half your population racist instead of addressing their concerns it really becomes difficult to get them to listen and you want people to listen. It's easier to get people to consider how they might be mistaken when you're not calling them racists at each and every opportunity both in the mainstream and social media. That seems to drive more people to listen to people who aren't calling them racists.


This.

Whether immigration to a country provides a net economic benefit is indeed contingent upon many factors. Whether it provides a net economic benefit to the working class of an affluent country even more so. Maybe the UK is benefiting from it's current immigration level and there isn't a glut in unskilled labor supply. That could be true, it could not be true (and if true, because the UK is the fastest growing country in Europe it almost certainly doesn't hold elsewhere in the Eurozone), it can even be true some years and not other years due to shifts int he labor market because of business cycles The case is muddled enough that the ultimate benefit/loss is indeed generally small at the scale of GDP. Winners and losers are created by any immigration policy, however - and if the winners are the immigrants and not native born citizens then the country is not serving its national interest.

Note that, because the net benefit of high immigration is, at best, rather small and can flip negative pretty much at any time if there's a squeeze on the labor market, restricting immigration levels is highly unlikely to harm a country in any significant way. In terms of potential damage caused by policies favored among the right wing its at the very bottom of the list.

If you want to bring the working class back into the liberal fold and have them support the big issues like tax increases, labor and union solidarity, housing policy, and more, you need to show sympathy on the issue of immigration and possibly try to co-opt a reduction in level outright. That includes getting the immigrants themselves on board, as divides between immigrant and native born populations in the working class shatters labor solidarity and can create zero sum competition between the two (often deliberately induced through corporate action), that is usually exacerbated by ethnic divides.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Economists, politicians, and pundits make the case that immigration is a net positive all the time.


That article has an interesting graph, specifically the part where 19% of respondents said that immigration had a negative impact on them personally, while 51% said it hadn't had an impact and only 27% said it had a positive personal impact. That's the key cohort and a key driver of opinions.

People don't care about immigration if its had a positive impact on their lives, but they care a fuckton when that impact has been negative, and they talk to friends and family about it, which convinces people in that majority 51% to be for immigration restrictions. And yes, a good portion of that 19% consists of people who are racist or are simply mistaken, but if even 5% of people in the UK have actually suffered a negative impact in the lives due to immigration, that's a real and significant problem and absolutely sufficient to justify an anti-immigration position.

Making a compelling pro-immigration case is always going to be difficult. Humans are naturally xenophobic, and most actual racists are incredibly xenophobic and tend to loudly say racist xenophobic things. That's awful and it should be called out, but it's important to be very careful to call out racists statements as racist and not to simply broad-brush call out statements that are for a lower immigration level or simply greater national control over immigration policy (it is possible to have both high immigration levels and very restrictive immigration policies - see Canada) as inherently racist. Otherwise you get a backlash and things like Leave winning happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4788

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
Your legal opinion on that doesn't count. The UK government's legal opinion doesn't count. The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the European Union institutions.

Yes, and the only people whose opinions mattered in King v. Burwell were five of the nine supreme court justices - nonetheless ruling that only those who enrolled in state-operated exchanges qualified for tax credits would have been objectively incorrect and a blatant attempt to rewrite the law using their judicial authority, and if it had happened you would not have offered us your oh-so-useful wisdom about how laws don't really matter, only judges do. You would have called it a dangerous powergrab by a bunch of assholes.

And guess what? Angela Merkel and her EU coalition are also assholes. You should not be happy about them testing their claws at rewriting the treaties through judicial "interpretation," because they do not share your values and will use every power given to them to undermine the causes you support. The EU is not secretly a progressive government held back by conservative obstructionism and steep legislative hurdles. It is a blatantly conservative government held back by progressive obstructionism (except when it's not, which is often) and steep legislative hurdles, and that's not going to change anytime soon. Even if you are not a fan of dissolution, the goal is absolutely to weaken and democratize the EU. If you don't agree with that, then you are on the wrong side of this debate period. There is nothing principally wrong with a federal Europe, but the EU is not the federal Europe you actually want. There are a fuckton of reforms that need to happen before we can have the discussion about whether or not the judiciary unilaterally expanding the EU's authority could be a good thing.


Last edited by DSMatticus on Sun Jul 03, 2016 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26686

PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2016 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Accepting the Tories' argument and framing that immigration had to be brought down and the government spending level had to be brought down is how Labour lost the last election. When the Tories successfully convince a majority of people of something that is stupid and wrong, the correct choice is not to accept that framing and meekly say you'll kick peasants in a kinder and gentler way. The Tories are fucking wrong that reducing government spending levels is good, just as they are fucking wrong that reducing immigration is a goal worth pursuing.

Once you accept the goalposts of the Conservatives as given, you will never convince people to vote for you over the Conservatives. Why would anyone vote for a watered down Conservative playbook if they thought Conservative goals were their own?

The lesson of the Brexit referendum is the same as the lesson of the last parliamentary election: you have to attack the premises of the Tories. It is wholly insufficient to quibble about details of implementation because the voting public doesn't care. If you don't fight the big lies you've lost.

No, adopting Conservative anti-immigrant rhetoric will not win Labour any elections. But it will encourage hate crimes against Polish people.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Korwin
Duke


Joined: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 1883
Location: Linz / Austria

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

hyzmarca wrote:

Germany doesn't have a seat on the Security Council, so that automatically makes them less important. They cannot actually start World War III.
What?

Germany lost WW2, I assumed that is the reason they are not on the Security Council.
And not being on the Security Council, that is the reason they are unable to start a third one? If they wanted? Really?

Quote:
five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,

_________________
Red_Rob wrote:

I mean, I'm pretty sure the Mayans had a prophecy about what would happen if Frank and PL ever agreed on something. PL will argue with Frank that the sky is blue or grass is green, so when they both separately piss on your idea that is definitely something to think about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hyzmarca
Prince


Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Korwin wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:

Germany doesn't have a seat on the Security Council, so that automatically makes them less important. They cannot actually start World War III.
What?

Germany lost WW2, I assumed that is the reason they are not on the Security Council.
And not being on the Security Council, that is the reason they are unable to start a third one? If they wanted? Really?

Quote:
five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,


They can't start World War III because, if they actully tried, the security council vote would go like this.

United States: "Should we nuke Berlin? I think we should nuke Berlin"
France: "Of course we should nuke Berlin."
Russia:"We've been wanting to nuke Berlin for the last 60 years."
Britain:"Us, too."
China: "It didn't matter to us one way or the other. Sure, fine, go ahead and nuke Berlin."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Schleiermacher
Knight-Baron


Joined: 05 Sep 2012
Posts: 576

PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Nigel Farage retired as UKIP leader today (Ding dong, etc.) but the news here in Norway were pretty vague as to why. Anyone care to enlighten me?

I mean, it's not a big mystery since he was pretty much in a no-win position but I'd like to know what the spesific reasons (and his professed reasons) were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koumei
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12624
Location: South Ausfailia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

He resigns every fucking year. Last time he quit it was for all of three days, so he could very well be one of the candidates to replace him. He claims he "wants his life back", apparently someone has stolen it from him? Probably one of those immigrants who also stole the UK?

Chances are it's a totally temporary thing done to avoid the heat for fucking the country up, bailing on the responsibility of keeping the current mess under control and wandering back when someone else has fallen on their sword or actually fixed things.
_________________
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Omegonthesane
Duke


Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 1679

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

He hasn't stepped down as an MEP, and the weakening of the pound in the wake of the referendum meant that his MEP salary paid in Euros has gone up in terms of the currency he actually uses.
_________________
Corsair114 wrote:
You got an 8. You succeeded in deciphering shad's post but were eaten by an owlbear. Please create another character.
Orion wrote:
Maybe cars get a strength score, and then they attack you with a car?
FrankTrollman wrote:
And if there are any weeds that grow better in barren soil than laziness and ignorance, I don't know what they are (and don't care enough to find out).
Kaelik wrote:
Because powerful men get away with terrible shit, and even the public domain ones get ignored, and then, when the floodgates open, it turns out there was a goddam flood behind it.


Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!


Last edited by Omegonthesane on Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sendaz
Journeyman


Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The better question is how much money Farage may have made off Brexit.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-trading-on-brexit-2016-6
Several small hedge fund groups pulled off some good money through this.

Farage is a former commodities broker/City trader and I believe still refuses to date to release his tax returns so it would be interesting to see if he actually profitted or not from recent events.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DrPraetor
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 768

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The rhetoric of the Conservative party has taken a frightening turn.

Neo-conservatives, Reagan/Thatcher disciples generally, utilize jingoism and bigotry to drive an otherwise-unpopular economic agenda.

But now Theresa May has flipped that, expressing a willingness to accept populist economic reforms - worker participation on corporate boards, income redistribution - in order to get the people to accept her anti-immigrant racist proposals, which as Frank has pointed out, are economically harmful to the general population.

That's not Thatcher's program, that's Hitler's - if you increase social spending, the population will put up with it while you kill all the Jews. It's a very frightening development, if May's at all serious about it.

Corbyn, meanwhile, is looking a lot less hapless. I think part of his problem was, he didn't know how to deal with being the "leader" of a bunch of neoliberal Blairistas. That no-confidence vote was exactly what he needed to recenter himself and focus on a productive game plan.
_________________

Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PhoneLobster
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6199

PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Unless Corbyn's game plan includes deselecting a minimum of about 10% of his own party that rebelled against him, and so far he has been very reluctant to permit his strong grass roots support from doing that, then his game plan is short term at best.

No matter how successful Corbyn manages to be, and despite the fact he can and SHOULD remain leader for now. One day there will need to be a successor for the grass roots movement he represents in the party. But if there aren't enough MPs loyal to that movement that movement will never again have another nominee to vote for.

So I'm still waiting for the deselection battles to see whether Corbyn's movement has the teeth it needs to survive against the cannibal parasites in it's own party.
_________________
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koumei
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12624
Location: South Ausfailia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The UK contest has mostly been between two extremely right wing women, meaning their next PM will be some form of Thatcher 2.0 - the UK won't get the PM it needs, wants or asks for, it will get the PM it fucking deserves. Presumably the small rock she sends the military to attack will be Gibraltar this time.

For a little while, before the whole "initiates the Brexit proper or doesn't, causes chaos and takes 100% of the blame, falls on her own sword and is replaced, never to appear in politics again" thing happens.
_________________
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 26686

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 5:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Theresa May is going to become the PM this week without any vote being taken of the Tory party members or of the broader electorate. Andrea Leadsom quit the race shortly after winning the right to stand against May in the Conservative Party election next September, and now those elections have been canceled with May's coronation pushed up to Wednesday evening.

What does all this mean?

On the most superficial level, Gove betrayed Boris Johnson, Boris Johnson bowed out of the leadership race and backed Leadsom, Leadsom edged Gove out in round three of Tory Survivor and then quit. So you could look at Leadsom as being a simple fake candidate whose only purpose was to allow various Tories from the Leave campaign to stab each other in the back.

On the next level of course, we're pretty sure that none of the Leave campaigners actually want to be in charge of this shit show. They made promises with their mouths that they cannot possibly keep. Anything they negotiated for Brexit would fall well short of what hey are on record as promising, so if any of them were "in charge" in the next 2 years, they'd basically be out of politics forever. They know this of course, and none of them fought very hard against the various "betrayals." The supposed gaffe that Leadsom withdrew over is so weak sauce that it could easily all be fake - just the Leave campaign sweeping up behind themselves after making sure that their careers weren't contaminated by the coming fail storm.

But then there's the issue of David Cameron speeding his resignation up from September/October to "Tomorrow." Certainly it could be about striking while the iron is hot and trying to race ahead to snap elections before the Labour party can get its shit together. Everything else Cameron has ever done has been about playing Russian Roulette with the country in order to win short term electoral victories. But the fact that the EU bluntly rejected his proposals to start Article 50 negotiations sometime after October cannot be ignored here. Resigning on Tuesday is the only way to make his claim that negotiations start after the new PM takes power and the EU's demand that they start negotiations "very soon" true at the same time.

But yes, Theresa May is scary as shit. She's saying she's willing to buy off white English people with all kinds of populist social programs (for white English people only) in order to get enough political capital to screw over Arabs and Poles. I mean, she is literally promising jobs and housing for the Volk in order to give herself a free hand to oppress Semites and Slavs. This could get really bad.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Koumei
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12624
Location: South Ausfailia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

This was written before I was born, and it seems appropriate for the new anthem of the United Kingdom.
_________________
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maglag
Knight-Baron


Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 934

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Wow things speeded up all of a sudden.

So much for the whole "the UK has a divided opinion and totally not racist and not wanting to leave the EU so they can be more racist". Then Theresa May is offered a clear path to PM. This shall be an interesting summer.
_________________
FrankTrollman wrote:

Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shatner
Knight-Baron


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 844

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Koumei wrote:
This was written before I was born, and it seems appropriate for the new anthem of the United Kingdom.

There's some silver lining for ya: things may be taking a nasty turn, but suddenly old Stephan Fry and Hugh Laurie satirical pieces are becoming relevant again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Parthenon
Knight-Baron


Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Posts: 902

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's a shitty few days for democracy in the UK- we have a new Prime Minister going in a whole new racist direction that the public had no part in choosing, and Labour is trying anything and everything to remove Corbyn from power including directly disenfranchising 130,000 people.

So, if you hadn't heard, the Labour rules for challenging the Labour leader is that all the challengers need support from 20% of the MPs. But there is no requirement for the current leader to drum up support. However, the Labour MPs who hate the idea of Corbyn wanted to ignore that and demand that 20% of the MPs vote for Corbyn. That was just thrown out and the actual rules will be applied, and so suddenly this happens:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-12/corbyn-opponents-try-to-fix-vote/

After the official Labour meeting is over and a large number of MPs had left, they snuck in a vote to disenfranchise 25% of the party. I can understand why they would want to remove Corbyn, but it screws over Labour's ability to be trusted and ability to get anything done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group