jaywalker

glass-ceiling

mask

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Teresa May. The Conservative Party 'if elected' > will reduce Energy Prices.. > > Why haven't they done that in the past 2 years. > ? > > Call me old fashioned .. > > Fox. May is acting in bad faith here (plus ?a change, plus c'est la m?me chose). She must some time ago have been briefed that we have an impending energy supply crisis due to lack of investment. Just announcing lower prices will 1. ensure further curtailment of investment 2. MUCH higher costs of energy in the medium to longer term. But I guess she doesn't care - (it is unlikely she is too stupid to do the calculation). Cue millions of adoring fans of her 'strong' leadership on this issue (as with so many others). (BTW, yes, I would renationalise the energy supply business, tomorrow, before lunch, and with only minimal compensation.)

This reminds me of the tiger and the goat (which, I fear, was only a temporary alliance, a bit like a pantry). I wonder if the relationship between May and her captivated ones might prove a tad similar?

crystal

It is a disaster. We are leaving and it is going to be with nothing to fall back upon (apart from a fantasy of our special relationship with Trump, and stupid deals with terrible regimes far away). My fear is that those whose ressentiment leads them to vote for the 'strong' May will be so disenchanted by the reality of what will happen next that they will seek out 'truly' strong leaders. It has happened before.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jaywalker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I really like this idea. > The surest manner to do this is to distribute it > to all who: > a] Have a NI Number - only available to those over > 16 entitled to work in the UK; > b] Tax affairs up to date; > c] Are registered to vote in local elections - > only available to UK permanent residents over 16 > d] Actually vote - if you don't vote, you lose > your Universal Wage. > > If you fail any criterion, then no UW. Yes, this makes much sense. The only nuance is that in d) you must actually turn up to vote but there is always a box to tick that says 'none of the above'. I think Utopian exercises of this kind are well worth while, particularly in these dark times. We must imagine possible sunshine despite the cold and absence of light. The Times today gives the supine cowards of Theresa May's parliamentary party (the majority of them think that 1. Brexit is an appalling idea 2. that May is a terrible leader) such a big lead that they will have a majority of about 200. We should tremble at that.

er, uncleglen, you mean multinationals are relocating production from stupid xenophobic and isolationist May's UK to Poland as fast as they can because there are no workers there? The tragedy is that those who are affected by loss of jobs (particularly in areas like Wales) seem to have been seduced into thinking May will save them. Such a strong woman. They will, I fear, be disenchanted (again). We seem to think we have a birth right to wages above those in other European countries. And a fatal attraction to 'strong' women in politics. Well, the consequence will be much lower wages here, perhaps for some time.

You can also charm the foxes. They like dog/cat food, but particularly human left-overs from meals such as Sunday lunch (nothing with onion or garlic as it damages their livers). If they have mange they need better food, so please provide. You may well be able to persuade them to take eggs from your hand (for them a particular treat, but you may have to show them what to do with them (I think urban foxes have lost the pedagogic thread on that one). No real danger to cats unless infirm. Do not give them cooked chicken bones (raw ones fine).

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It would be easier today > just to issue debit cards that would discounted by > a taxed amount each month - use it or lose it. > The stamped amount would effectively add to the > multiplier effect of the money. It could also be > an interesting experiment in a Universal Wage for > all to see how it might pan out for the future > robot infested world. If coupled with some QE for > public infrastructure it would stimulate the > economy in a positive manner - Welcome back, > Pozzo; the Chicago Boys exit stage right - your > time in the limelight is about too end. I really like this idea. I'm a big fan of the idea of a Universal Wage for all adults (over 16s probably as I think prolonged compulsory schooling is a great evil). I hadn't thought about the flexibility this would give monetary policy (the only policy that won't get crowded out in a free exchange rate with perfect capital mobility world, apart from distribution on the fiscal side - as you say, infrastructure). And it would be fair in its impact. I have been appalled by the crass way quantitative easing has benefited so distorted a part of the economy. I do not think people quite appreciate how much QE has been done (and will continue to be done). Time we recognised ourselves as together, and support each other as such. uncleglen, for every person on whom you vent your spleen there are many others who - as the LSE determined definitively - make a strong positive net contribution to the economy. In an age when the native born population is ageing rapidly we would be increasingly lost without foreign workers. Why TM is scaring me to death, frankly.

But the issue is helicopter drop of what. If just cash in current circumstances it will be hoarded. So must be time-delimited spending coupons. This predicated on a collapse of both V and y following from the 'i'm a bloody difficult PM' comment; rather than a sustained increase in P (Lordship will have the most recent data).

the more I watch this the more I am submitting a blank ballot paper. Tim Fallon : what the fuck? Sure, I vote Lib-Dem for an evangelical? What? And, more police? WHAT? T May: Bloody good (as it were!?!) The rest: nowhere or just confused. A blank return would at least satisfy the Kantian principle that if we all did it ...

palindrome

101000101 (with, I admit, a little help from a robot)

I love the Downing Street 'we do not recognise the description' mantra, paraded every time reality bites - in this case the incredulity of the EU negotiating team in the face of May's rigidity and stupidity. We have heard that mantra before. I fear we will hear it again.

If the population is large (or a couple of breeding pairs that will grow geometrically every 3 months) you really have no option but to adopt (or buy) a cat. I suggest a black cat, the purer black the better (the famed gatto nero, without which any Italian ship would not set sail because of the guarantee they gave that the ship's grain would be safe). There are many waiting in refuges for the opportunity (for some reason many people in the UK dislike black cats). I have one. There are no mice (apart from those he goes out to bring me in as presents).

man

Now why might mandatory sentencing be a bad idea. Why might it be truly a very bad idea?

vehicle

It is looking like the widely carried criticism of the robotic stupid and childish Conservative mantras is beginning to bite. Unfortunately for the deluded ones, social media now carries much sway (those who don't have any access to it tend not to vote). Those being patronised will wake up to the bad dream they had been part of. I will be glad if people then start saying to the governing classes "grow up, or we won't vote for you".

A cat is a burst of energy, mao, directed in ways neither you nor I can imagine. It can be subdued, and then merely reflect your care and solicitude (these are not goods). It is symbiotic, so invites this misrecognition. But its life is other, not yours.

I think we have to accept that this is being internalised by large swathes of the electorate. Children expect to be told how the world is: a strong leader who will help them. It is a disaster (neither opposition party leader can counter this at all, they were selected as personality types recognisable by adults).

At the end of his 'market for lemons' (I don't really go in for economics, but on this occasion the Nobel prize was certainly deserved). Suppose we have a population made up of subgroup A and subgroup B, each exactly 50% of the total, each equally likely to carry knives (neither recognisable group any more criminal than the other). Now suppose the police stop and search on that basis (50 : 50) and come across someone with a knife. They then adjust their stop and search sampling (in a way they perceive as fair because they are charged with stopping criminality as efficiently as they can) to reflect what they see as the higher probability of someone carrying a knife from the subgroup from which their (in fact completely chance) discovery came from. With further success, in a general population completely even in its propensity to iniquity, they are very soon only stopping people from that sub-group. And that is the sub-group who go to jail and are stigmatised. This quite apart from all the other factors involved in stigmatisation. Economics is only a tiny vision, but here it is a profound one. Stop and search is locally rational. There is no insinuation here of any bias by the police - that would of course never happen because the police are always-already on our side, that is why they joined up. But it is here shown to be generally irrational. IF the case for stop and search is that it is rational (on anything other than random sampling that persists in the face of 'results') it is here refuted. Hence Akerlof's immortality. (this principle applies much much more generally, but is generally not recognised).

Relatively few guns, some move towards knives. Murder rate falling. Misconceived calls for mandatory tougher sentences (no evidence of any deterrent, quite the contrary). Nostalgia for when people didn't do this sort of thing (oh please tell me when). Astonishing calls for stop and search (as if no one has read a thing written by Akerlof). We, generally, live in a MUCH more docile and safe environment in the City than EVER before. So think all should grow up a bit. (For calibration: it has been estimated that diesel vehicles alone cause several thousand deaths a year in the city).

I will be voting for: The provision of housing for all A living wage for all adults A radical move away from imprisonment as a form of punishment for criminals The abolition of our so-called nuclear deterrent The reinstatement of privacy rights against the surveillance of multiple government agencies (few of which have anything to do with security) A re-commitment to the European Community as an integrative idea Relinquishing our subaltern relationship with the United States The de-criminalisation of drugs The prohibition of diesel taxis The abolition of university tuition fees The abolition of immigration quotas for foreign students studying in the UK Transparency in the tax system Making overseas aid a voluntary contribution on people's tax returns/annual income summaries The prohibition of private schooling A radical transformation of what we mean by schooling Giving London city-state powers (e.g. no controls on immigration of any kind into the area inside the M25)