All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

To (poorly) paraphrase Robert Wolffe: "if they don't want our money, fuck 'em. Someone else will do their job for less, just as surely as someone else will do their job better. We call this system of supply and demand "capitalism"."

Britain's system of governance is absolutely terrible - I feel I really must state this for any non-brits reading this thread. Almost anything else would be better than a bunch of privately-educated schoolboys braying at each other like donkeys and calling it "a debate", if only because it's a pointless exercise given the whip system and the top-down nature of the power system in parties who do not have democratically-selected leaders but figureheads vetted and elected by the party elite. It would be a stupid system of government for a backwater planet in an episode of Star Trek, never mind a first world democracy in 2015, but like most rituals, it has become ingrained in the culture with time and repetition. Combining the undemocratic First Past The Post election process with an unelected head of state, on a parochial level it relies upon a system of approval to stand for even the most basic of public offices that is objectively nothing more than simple bribery - it is literally the absolute worst system possible.

[Tendrin]

I just don't agree that any Government has proved to be worthy enough, and clean enough to: simultaneously take their citizens money; while placing a "glass ceiling" over said citizens. Certainly not the British government. It is what is, and it's a damn good system of governing compared to the alternatives, but it's not infallible. And crippling the lofty heights of your citizens, because "life should be fairer" is just opening a horrible can of worms and also not seeing the long term fallout: we stop paying well, they'll go to those who do. Do we really want entrepreneurs moving abroad, do we want those aiming to be the top travelling abroad because when they get to the top, they want the top salaries? The sad reality is people go where the money is, that's why charities need to pay their figure heads ludicrous sums, because otherwise they'll very, very rarely get the best. The best come with a price tag. It's the cruel reality of Capitalism.

'Caps' are dumb, but there are plenty of other methods to keep money moving through an economy rather than collecting in a bulk at the top. The argument you're using, though, has been used in the States for a long time to attack ANY form of wealth redistribution and I'm pretty sure England doesn't want the results of that kind of thinking that are seen here in the States.

The 'cruel reality' of capitalism is often proven to be a load of malarkey. For all the people who huffed and puffed about moving to Singapore or something when the taxes were raised here, it didn't happen. For all the huffing and puffing about high taxes in the States, indeed, these same people who whine about their tax burden are more than happy, eager even, to do business in high-tax hellholes like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Businesses go where profit can be made and where there is demand, nothing more and nothing less. If they don't want the profit, someone else will gladly take it.

Refusing to do anything because of fear of capital flight simply cedes yet more governing power to the mega-wealthy. Really, though, the degree of income inequality is really, really poisonous, and simply saying that the cold reality of capitalism means we can't do anything about it is just not wrongheaded, in my view.

(Also, charities that pay their heads ridiculous amounts of money tend to have a host of other problems, not the least of which is ridiculously high 'administrative costs', which are really just bullshit excuses to pay themselves huge salaries.)

[numberthirty]

Surprising no one, Scott Walker's plans for the presidency is 'replicate Wisconsin's Disaster Nationwide'.



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-exc...sugc_container

Because nothing says freedom like restricting the rights of people to organize!

Lemme get this straight...

At a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Walker will propose eliminating unions for employees of the federal government, making all workplaces right-to-work unless individual states vote otherwise, scrapping the federal agency that oversees unfair labor practices and making it more difficult for unions to organize.

Really, lemme get this straight...

States rights! Right up until I want to take a sweeping federal action!

[worstblogever]

It was one year ago that we first profiled the sitting U.S. Senator from Louisiana, David Vitter, a man implicated in the D.C. Madam Scandal several years back who according to some of the prostitutes he frequented, enjoys being diapered like a baby. Now, as if that weren’t enough to open and close his profile, you have to also consider he’s enough of a partisan hack to have been only one of two senators who voted against Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State in 2009 (the other was Jim DeMint), he opposed the Franken Amendment (which was written to punish military contractors who try to cover up sexual assaults overseas to Americans), and has been trying to destroy Planned Parenthood long before the manufactured “scandal” over doctored videos that we saw here in 2015. In spite of his main “job creating” in Washington having been to find a niche for certain sex workers, Sen. Vitter won re-election in 2010 during the Tea Party Wave by running some of the most jaw-dropping racist anti-immigrant ads of that campaign in a very crowded field.

With former Senator Mary Landrieu ousted from the Senate in 2014, in a year of record low Democratic turnout, Sen. Vitter decided to make a calculated gamble and dodge her comeback campaign to instead run for Louisiana Governor in the upcoming 2015 Gubernatorial election, hoping to replace the term-limited Gov. Bobby Jindal, figuring he could still find a high-profile gig with less risk, other than potentially spending his campaign money (which nowadays is near infinite thanks to corporate sponsors) on the 2015 race, rather than save it for the 2016 one.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, over the past year, Vitter has still been as partisan, and as direly opposed to women’s rights as ever:

• On September 23rd, 2014, Sen. Vitter went on Newsmax to level the baseless charge that President Obama lied about a terror threat from the Khorasan terror group, a branch of Al Qaeda in Syria, to aid his party’s chances in the mid-term elections. Later in the same interview, he said that the administration was offering public benefits to undocumented immigrants and was trying to “increase illegal flow into the United States with the eventual goal of making them citizens and voters and everything else.”
• On October 10th, 2014, Vitter complained about the Obama administration’s response to the Ebola Virus outbreak. He wasn’t saying that the response was inadequate, as much as that he was disappointed that it “focused too much on Africa”.
  Which is stupid, considering that’s where the outbreak was, y’know, happening.
• On January 16th, 2015, David Vitter introduces legislation that would require anyone on food stamps to show Photo ID every time they buy food (party of smaller government, at its best).
• On February 27th, 2015, Sen. Vitter votes against funding the Department of Homeland Security as part of a Republican protest of President Obama’s executive orders on immigration.
• On March 6th, 2015, David Vitter calls for an end of birthright citizenship, which would involve a repeal of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, while claiming that “birth tourism is crazy nuts”.
• On March 25th, 2015, Sen. Vitter is outraged to hear of a plan by fellow Republican Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming to enact a plan by the Government Accountability Office and begin replacing dollar bills with dollar coins (which would save $5.5 billion in the cost of making paper $1 bills over 30 years). He actually wrote an amendment in the Senate Budget Committee (that failed) that read, "strike out a provision that makes it easier for Washington elites to force Americans to give up their dollar bills and use dollar coins, like Europeans."
• On August 2nd, 2015, Vitter votes for the GOP Senate’s to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, based off of manufactured outrage over the heavily edited “sting” videos of Planned Parenthood employees engineered by a Right to Life Group.

As of August 7th, the “Vitter for Governor” campaign really started sweating, when polls showed them in 3rd place, trailing behind both Republican Scott Angelle and Democrat John Bel Edwards. That may have put enough of a scare in Vitter to have made him soil his diapers and ask for a change from another prostitute, but it hardly would be the end of his political career. As we said, even if he loses in this election in about two months… he gets to run for Senate to see if he can play “keep away” with Mary Landrieu, who while she is hardly held in the highest regard, people still regard her better than a guy who’s a hypocrite on social issues, and has a long policy track record against issues that help women or the poor.

[Arvandor]

To (poorly) paraphrase Robert Wolffe: "if they don't want our money, fuck 'em. Someone else will do their job for less, just as surely as someone else will do their job better. We call this system of supply and demand "capitalism"."

Britain's system of governance is absolutely terrible - I feel I really must state this for any non-brits reading this thread. Almost anything else would be better than a bunch of privately-educated schoolboys braying at each other like donkeys and calling it "a debate", if only because it's a pointless exercise given the whip system and the top-down nature of the power system in parties who do not have democratically-selected leaders but figureheads vetted and elected by the party elite. It would be a stupid system of government for a backwater planet in an episode of Star Trek, never mind a first world democracy in 2015, but like most rituals, it has become ingrained in the culture with time and repetition. Combining the undemocratic First Past The Post election process with an unelected head of state, on a parochial level it relies upon a system of approval to stand for even the most basic of public offices that is objectively nothing more than simple bribery - it is literally the absolute worst system possible.

Are you serious? Tell me that's just stupid hyperbole. Because it is stupid.

The UK has one of the greatest government systems in the world. Every other nation is either a horrid dictatorship, a war zone, or deeply divided and ineffective.

[Kieran_Frost]

Are you serious? Tell me that's just stupid hyperbole. Because it is stupid.

The UK has one of the greatest government systems in the world. Every other nation is either a horrid dictatorship, a war zone, or deeply divided and ineffective.

This! We haven't had a civil war in over 300 years, our structure is clearly stable/working because of a well balanced government. No government is perfect (obviously) but ours is strong and has been for centuries.

[macattack]

This! We haven't had a civil war in over 300 years, our structure is clearly stable/working because of a well balanced government. No government is perfect (obviously) but ours is strong and has been for centuries.

If Britain's system of government can weather World War II, where Hitler tried exceptionally hard to put the country at its knees, and remain essentially the way it was seventy years later, it's a strong form of government (note that the Soviets collapsed forty-five years after the war). Not much else can be said.

[Coin Biter]

Well, I woke up on Monday to find that my local MP, one of the most radical Parliamentary voices, is now Shadow Chancellor I wonder what odds bookmakers would have given on that this time last year? This seems like a pretty certain sign that Corbyn will not compromise at least his economic/social beliefs post his election.

And, truthfully, some 30 years ago, those views (renationalisation, higher top rate of income tax, etc.) would not have seemed radical in the context of the the then Labour party. It's really only been the paradigm shift of Thatcherism/the New Labour movement which makes their re-emergence seem surprising. And of course they are views which clearly a huge number of Labour supporters, a significant number of Plaid supporters, many SNP supporters, the Green Party, and, hell, even some people on the left of the Lib Dems, might well agree with.

And if Corbyn can construct an election-winning Labour party on that basis, fair enough. I have my doubts about some of his policies, but there's much in there with which many people would agree.

Where, however, Corbyn has always been on the radical side of the Labour Party are in his foreign policy views, and there I have a great deal of concern. Oh, I'm not talking about such trivia as describing Osama bin Laden's death as a "tragedy" - he wanted the man to stand trial, which is legitimate. I'm not even talking about matters such as inviting Sinn Fein to London weeks after the Brighton bombing in the 1980s, although I can understand why there are some who will never forgive this.

However, blaming the Ukraine crisis on Nato and regarding Russia's actions as "not unprovoked", his attitude on Argentina - these very much put him on the outlier of British politics. Corbyn, like Seamus Milne of the Guardian, seeks to condemn Western imperialism, while judging Russia's brutal "sphere of influence" approach to its neighbours by very different standards. I find it difficult to understand and respect this point of view, which seems to be as rooted as much in a desire to have strong national counters to US power as in principle. Not to mention his past expressed wish to leave NATO and the European Union.

So on balance I would be very unhappy with a Corbyn Premiership not that, frankly, I think it's at all likely to happen. How on earth, for example, will Corbyn be able to expect his MPs to toe the party line when he has rebelled more times against his own party than any other Labour MP?

My best wishes to John McDonnell, though - he's a thoroughly decent man and a great constituency MP.

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

While I would never defend Russian aggression in Eastern Europe or his appalling stance on gay rights, I feel that I should at least point out that rather than a rampaging warmonger as portrayed in the West, Putin has been a highly successful stabilising force in Russia, taking back the cities from the mafia and the oligarchs and drastically reducing poverty levels in the country. The Western media - even supposed bastions of liberal truth like the Guardian - has constantly misrepresented Putin's premiership as adversarial and unstable in order to push a pro-NATO, pro-aggression narrative in line with US policy, and the stability of Eastern Europe has been a casualty of what is effectively a proxy war in the Ukraine.

Are you serious? Tell me that's just stupid hyperbole. Because it is stupid.

The UK has one of the greatest government systems in the world. Every other nation is either a horrid dictatorship, a war zone, or deeply divided and ineffective.

"Hyperbole" would be describing all governments in the world as being one of three extreme states and nothing else.

By all means, feel free to explain to all non-Brits how the peers system where the government gives someone - anyone, even political donors - a title that allows them to claim millions in public money while also sitting for life in an unelected chamber of government with the power of veto on the passing of laws is the fairest system in the world. And of course then there's the monarchy, another unelected group paid for by the taxpayer who have the power of veto over laws passed by the government and whose permission is required for a government to take office. Oh, and then there's the boundaries being redrawn by the current government so that the FPTP system will be skewed towards their party and no others - a scheme that is basically something you would expect to be enacted by Boss Hogg to let him seize control of the Duke family's land.

The UK system is an anachronistic joke. If you have a fondness for it born of conservatism or royalist sentiment, then fine, but don't pretend it's something it isn't.

[Mr. Mastermind]

My main problem with Corbyn's shadow cabinet is that Diane Abbott will no longer be appearing on This Week. Her and McDonnell are the only hard left figures in it, the rest are soft left types.

If this was true, then the Conservatives would have never supported and fort for gay marriage, because a lot of backbenchers didn't like it. If party policy was dictated by backbenchers, they'd be in the Cabinet and the Cabinet backbenchers. Do the backbenchers have some influence, yes. So do citizens. So do reporters. So do celebrities. But party policy is driven by the Cabinet; and it doesn't (nor has to) go in line with what the backbenchers think.

Whatever, that comment wasn't about the leadership.

How hard can it be to balance the budget of a nation; shame on his lack of precognitive knowledge. The Chancellor's job is both easy and never effected by any outside factors that cannot be predicted. Seriously 2 + 2 = 4. It's not rocket science, George!

Osborne said that if we just halved the deficit by 2015 we'd be in crisis and bankrupt in 2010, and by 2015 he's only halved the deficit despite having a "long term economic plan". The man is just lying to voters.

The minimum wage is completely fine (and it's going up again, so it'll be even more fine).

Not if you're below 25.

You're missing the point. Let's say a foortball club (I'm making up numbers here) makes £500 million in a year. Who should the majority of that money go to in the business, if not the footballers?

Corbyn is saying that footballers deserve a decent and comfortable living, but that a salary of millions every week is simply ridiculous, and that money would be spent on tackling poverty and homelessness, improving health and education and international development instead of footballers simply not spending it. That sounds like the morally right thing to do, even if it's not practical.

Life isn't fair and society isn't a fair place. We can do a lot to help (of course); but redistributing wealth isn't the way to proceed. There shouldn't be anything wrong about being rich, that is something many aspire to (people want security, not just for them but also for their family, and creature comforts, of course). There's nothing wrong with that; the fact some happen to be better at making lots of money than others is just life.

What socialists are saying is simple. Rich people have comfort and privileges that poor people do not have and that is wrong, just like men having comfort and privileges that women don't have is wrong. Society may currently be unequal, but the government of the day should try and make it equal and improve the lives of everybody.

Your point about aspiration doesn't make sense either; social democratic countries have more social mobility that more liberal ones. If you have social mobility then you should vote Labour.

Fun fact of the day, the new Australian PM is the great great nephew of George Lansbury, the UK Labour leader before Clement Attlee.

[Kieran_Frost]

If Britain's system of government can weather World War II, where Hitler tried exceptionally hard to put the country at its knees, and remain essentially the way it was seventy years later, it's a strong form of government (note that the Soviets collapsed forty-five years after the war). Not much else can be said.

By all means, feel free to explain to all non-Brits how the peers system where the government gives someone - anyone, even political donors - a title that allows them to claim millions in public money while also sitting for life in an unelected chamber of government with the power of veto on the passing of laws is the fairest system in the world. And of course then there's the monarchy, another unelected group paid for by the taxpayer who have the power of veto over laws passed by the government and whose permission is required for a government to take office. Oh, and then there's the boundaries being redrawn by the current government so that the FPTP system will be skewed towards their party and no others - a scheme that is basically something you would expect to be enacted by Boss Hogg to let him seize control of the Duke family's land.

The UK system is an anachronistic joke. If you have a fondness for it born of conservatism or royalist sentiment, then fine, but don't pretend it's something it isn't.

All of those things are there for a very practical reason. Laws must first be created by elected officials (the House of Commons), and if passed go to the House of Lords. It's important that unelected officials (who aren't strong armed by needs for re-election, and therefore can vote freer on issues) ratify it. It helps bring balance, and makes sure laws are fair. The House of Lords cannot form laws (to my knowledge), which is why the fact they are unelected works. They cannot make laws, only squash bad laws (and even then, if the House of Commons passes it three times, it superceeds the House of Lords). The Royal Family (specifically the Queen) serves one vital role in government: the army swears allegiance to the Queen, NOT country. She ultimately can control the army (though she would only execise this right in the most extreme of situations). This is designed for one specific purpose: a dictator cannot grab power without the army, and if the army can be controlled by someone not of a political party, ergo a dictatorship cannot happen. It's a very sensible "check and balance". All of them are. The fact you don't like them just because they are "unelected" is silly.

What country are you from, out of curiosity?

Osborne said that if we just halved the deficit by 2015 we'd be in crisis and bankrupt in 2010, and by 2015 he's only halved the deficit despite having a "long term economic plan". The man is just lying to voters.

My point being: things change, results and assumptions and theoretical possibilities change. Are you actually saying Osborne KNEW (categorically knew) precisely how everything would fall out in 5 years time, and therefore could actually lie about it? Come on, no-one can "know" that, at best they can make predictions and guesses.

Corbyn is saying that footballers deserve a decent and comfortable living, but that a salary of millions every week is simply ridiculous, and that money would be spent on tackling poverty and homelessness, improving health and education and international development instead of footballers simply not spending it. That sounds like the morally right thing to do, even if it's not practical.

Well at-least you acknowledge it's not a practical stance.

What socialists are saying is simple. Rich people have comfort and privileges that poor people do not have and that is wrong, just like men having comfort and privileges that women don't have is wrong. Society may currently be unequal, but the government of the day should try and make it equal and improve the lives of everybody.

I mean... eh. I know that seems heartless, but very few in Britain are actually "poor". If they have a roof over their heads, food and clothes they aren't really "poor"; not in the sense of what people should mean when they use it. They have a right to education, a right to free health-care, and numerous support options available if they so choose. YES, they might not have lots of disposable income (many don't, including me); but few are actually poor. Of course my heart goes out to those who actually are, and I fully support setting up more government aid for those specific people. But there will always be rich and poor, there will always be "a poverty line". Even if you make the poor richer, there will be those who are richer still (unless we all get paid the same; and all our money is redistributed so it's all even... and we become a communist state... which Corbyn might like, who knows? ).

Your point about aspiration doesn't make sense either; social democratic countries have more social mobility that more liberal ones. If you have social mobility then you should vote Labour.

Let's go with "no", on that one.

[InformationGeek]

Walker Watch Alert! More news from Scotty!

Scott Walker Calls Food Stamp Drug Testing 'A Progressive Thing'


Also, let's add something else to this Walker Watch Alert....

A Republican legislator wants to change the Wisconsin Constitution to allow the governor to pick the state schools superintendent rather than voters.

Rep. Joe Sanfelippo of New Berlin announced Monday that he's looking for co-sponsors for a constitutional amendment that would let the governor appoint the superintendent and give legislators the power to remove that pick from office. He noted nearly every other state agency is led by an appointed administrator and said moving to that model would provide more accountability.

"The students of our state should not be held hostage just because special interest groups can get someone without the proper qualifications to win a popularity contest every four years," Sanfelippo said. "Our children and teachers deserve much better," Sanfelippo said.

The constitution currently calls for a statewide election for superintendent every four years. The position is officially nonpartisan but current Superintendent Tony Evers has Democratic backing.

Evers, who holds a doctorate in educational administration from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was first elected as superintendent in 2009. He defeated Republican state Rep. Don Pridemore in 2013 to win his second term.

He supports the Common Core academic standards, which Republicans want to scrap, and has unsuccessfully opposed Republican Gov. Scott Walker and GOP legislators' efforts to expand the state's voucher program. The program supplies private school students with state subsidies to defray tuition costs.

In February a state appeals court ruled that part of a Republican-authored law that gave Walker veto authority over anything the superintendent proposes was unconstitutional.

State Department of Public Instruction spokesman John Johnson said in an email to The Associated Press that public schools have gotten stronger under Evers' leadership and prohibiting the people from choosing the superintendent amounts to "a sad attack at the heart of our democracy and our state's history."

"Haven't our strong public schools had enough upheaval and change?" Johnson said, an oblique reference to Walker's 2011 law that all but ended collective bargaining for government workers, including teachers. "It is unfortunate that there is a single legislator who wants to re-politicize a battle around public education."

Sanfelippo's amendment would have to pass two consecutive legislative sessions and a statewide referendum to take effect. The soonest the referendum could happen would be the spring 2017 election, when Evers would also face re-election.

Evers is the second left-leaning constitutional officer Republicans have targeted in the last year. The GOP added provisions to the state budget that cut Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette's office budget neaerly in half and forced him to relocate to small office deep in the state Capitol's basement.

Rep. Sandy Pope, a Cross Plains Democrat, said in a statement that she believes Sanfelippo's proposal is designed to enable Walker to install a superintendent willing to expand vouchers.

"The citizens of Wisconsin are not easily fooled by talking points and see this resolution for what it is — another Republican power grab," she said. "Making ridiculous claims and asserts that the current Superintendent is somehow unqualified and that DPI is failing kids is irresponsible, shameful and a cheap political stunt."

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

All of those things are there for a very practical reason. Laws must first be created by elected officials (the House of Commons), and if passed go to the House of Lords. It's important that unelected officials (who aren't strong armed by needs for re-election, and therefore can vote freer on issues) ratify it. It helps bring balance, and makes sure laws are fair. The House of Lords cannot form laws (to my knowledge), which is why the fact they are unelected works. They cannot make laws, only squash bad laws (and even then, if the House of Commons passes it three times, it superceeds the House of Lords). The Royal Family (specifically the Queen) serves one vital role in government: the army swears allegiance to the Queen, NOT country. She ultimately can control the army (though she would only execise this right in the most extreme of situations). This is designed for one specific purpose: a dictator cannot grab power without the army, and if the army can be controlled by someone not of a political party, ergo a dictatorship cannot happen. It's a very sensible "check and balance". All of them are. The fact you don't like them just because they are "unelected" is silly.

I wouldn't suggest that the Lords hasn't on occasion knocked back odious laws, but on balance this has happened only as a consequence of the chamber's ingrained conservatism, as the Lords has not been a "check and balance" system since the early 19th century. It might have been modified over time by the barest minimum demanded of the sensibilities of any given era in order to avoid dissolution or replacement, but it remains a symbol of hereditary privilege and the idea that it is in any way necessary for democratic process is laughable - as evidenced by the current government appointing party donors with no political experience as "lords" to represent the government's own interests in the chamber.

And the monarchy retain the power of veto over British laws - they have not chosen to utilise it, but they retain that right in law. That is ridiculous in 2015.

[Tendrin]

Balance of power is only okay if it's not ensuring that wealthy people and elites don't have too much a voice in society. If you try to restrain that, you're a commie-socialist-freedom hater.

In all seriousness, I'm interested in this discussion of british politics, very, and it's very illuminating. THanks, guys. I do mean that sincerely.

[Kid A]

Australia could have a new Prime Minister this week, with Malcolm Turnbull challenging PM Tony Abbott for leadership of the Liberal Party.

If the Americans are confused - here in Australia we don't directly elect the Prime Minister. Whoever is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is PM.

Abbott will go down as a legend.