I heard Norman Lamb on the radio this morning. Terribly sensible fellow.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This is a very salient point, particularly in an era of such a high tax burden and rising living costs. People want to have certainty with regards to their taxes, identifiable results. Ending up in the quagmire of general NHS spending does not instil that level of confidence.
Actually, I do keep an eye on The Canary. They were late to report on it. See my post from last Tuesday, when an MP wrote a letter about it. Look at the evidence.
Having kids is a privilege that is often taken for granted. In my opinion it is absolutely vital that you asses your means before deciding to bring a child into the world. If you're already struggling to make ends meet whatever would push you to make your financial situation even worse by introducing a child into the equation? The emotional side of things unfortunately is not enough because you can't feed yourself with love.
I am a father myself. I decided that I wanted to give my child the best possible start in life so opted for a private school. Me and my wife would like to have another child but currently we wouldn't be able to afford the same arrangement so we decided to wait until our circumstances change. Ours is not even a case of being able to make ends meet but rather a lifestyle choice so I can't comprehend how those who would struggle would make that decision.
Absolutely, some people are just not qualified to have kids at all but I think having your kids go to school hungry is a bigger issue than spoiling them to oblivion.
Jesus, what a world that would be, where only the rich get to have children.
Carry on Mein Fuhrer
That's a monstrous attitude
Surely we should just steralise the poor and take away the risk. You know, for the sake of the children.
God help you if circumstances or bad health mean you lose your income, you might as well just put a gun to your head.
I don't see much wrong with that post myself, unless I'm misunderstanding what he's saying.
I certainly wouldn't decide to have a child unless I thought I was both emotionally and financially able to cope.
Obviously that doesn't mean poorer people shouldn't have children. Someone with relatively little income might well decide they're nonetheless in a position to handle the financial strain of having a child. They'd be stupid not to take that factor into consideration though if they're actually in a position to make the decision in that way.
I certainly wouldn't decide to have a child unless I thought I was both emotionally and financially able to cope.
Obviously that doesn't mean poorer people shouldn't have children. Someone with relatively little income might well decide they're nonetheless in a position to handle the financial strain of having a child. They'd be stupid not to take that factor into consideration though if they're actually in a position to make the decision in that way.
If you're going to call it "conspiracy theory nonsense" then please tell us why you think that.
As for The Canary being a "fake news site", do you not accept that the MSM has been biased and inaccurate in its reporting on Labour, Corbyn and the left in general for years? The Canary makes no attempt to hide its bias the other way.
"[Nancy Mendoza, Director of Comms and Membership at The Canary] also insisted that The Canary’s news coverage was not biased. She said it was “a complete coincidence” that the website was created less than a month after Corbyn’s leadership victory in 2015. “We don’t have any affiliations with political parties, we don’t have any affiliations with political organisations, and we’re not actually ostensibly left-wing,”".
There is nothing wrong with taking your financial decision into account when deciding whether or not to have kids. Everything else is the problem.
Already we are off to a great start. Who are these people who are taking advantage of having children? What does this even mean? People were having children before democracy, before industry, before literacy, before language. Having children is not a privilege given to us but anything except the gods or fate if that's your kind of thing. No one died for our right to have children.
Of course the financial side of thing is important, but it's not the most important. I've met rich kids who had a terrible childhood, and I've met poor kids who had a childhood that I would dream of having. One of my best friends grew up very poor, on benefits, etc. He's now a hot shot in London earning more a year than I will earn in a decade.
Firstly, in almost any financial situation, kids are going to make it worse. They aren't cheap. Secondly, being poor shouldn't mean not being able to feed your kids. If we live in a country where kids are going un-fed, that's atrocious, and the tories should declare moral bankruptcy right now. Thirdly, the rich can become poor, just like the poor can become rich.
But fourthly, and most importantly, this is extremely delusional thinking. It simply doesn't work that way. People will have children. 16 year olds will get pregnant. Homeless people will get pregnant. Drug addicts will get pregnant. People have children. Unless you are proposing a hitler-like solution (hence why I am calling him hitler) then there answer is a state-provided safety net, nut shaking your finger and tutting and how stupid people can be.
The ultimate qualification.
fecking hell! So you've opted not to have a child because you can't afford to send him to some fancy private school. Wait a private primary school? What is the point of a private primary school? Let your kids have some fun! I can understand sending your kids to a private secondary school, but why private primary!?
But more importantly, have you thought about other factors at all?
Firstly, fertility. Women are a ticking time bomb, and men don't last forever either
Waiting forever simply isn't an option. Waiting for your finances to improve could lead to not being able to have any children at all. Or alternatively, lead to a greater risk of your child being born with defects such as Downs Syndrome
Again, Jesus christ. Letting your kids go to school hungry is terrible, but financial implosion could happen to anyone. Have we no compassion to help?
Buzzfeed 
Read it.Buzzfeed
“We are absolutely biased,” said Kerry-Anne Mendoza, editor of The Canary, when asked about its approach to covering the news. "We’re biased in favour of social justice, equal rights – those are non-negotiable things. We’re in this as an issue-driven organisation.”
Buzzfeed
Their journalism arm is really good which is bankrolled by their click bait stuff.
Would your wife have to get an abortion if they are pregnant but you can't afford to send the child to private school?
Whats if you can afford one child but you're having twins? Put one up for adoption?
You're pregnant but the child's disabled, now too expensive to afford, get rid?
Whats if you can afford one child but you're having twins? Put one up for adoption?
You're pregnant but the child's disabled, now too expensive to afford, get rid?
Aye, for all the flak they get I've heard there's actually some decent work getting done too.
Was it written by antisemite Mr Steve Topple, by any chance? Purveyor of conspiracy theories like Portland Communications?
Having difficulty understanding why people voted for UKIP then Brexit then Tories?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/europe/london-tabloids-brexit.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/europe/london-tabloids-brexit.html
Aye, the BBC have worked with them in a few joint investigations, which suggests they're meeting a good standard of journalism. The story about match-fixing in men's tennis a while back being one, a story about the UK government withholding funding from some charity being another.
It's kind of difficult to tell at the moment. It's a weird one in a sense for the SNP - on the face of it it's still a good election result because they're now comfortably the biggest party in every facet of Scottish politics, and they're in control of Glasgow.
But at the same time it's not as resounding as they'd hoped it to be - in areas like my own, for example, Labour narrowly emerged with one more councillor than them, which was kind of incredible considering a fairly prominent local figure told me a few months back they'd basically accepted they weren't going to win. Presumably local reputations played a lot in that, since despite the leader being a complete prick they've got a few alright ones. Still, again, kind of disappointing locally for the SNP considering they've been almost getting double the vote of Labour at Westminster and Holyrood elections.
Still, the big story is, of course, the massive swing towards the Tories, with an increase in areas where they've had little footing before, and actually managing to be the biggest party in a fair few areas as well. If they keep this up on a national level they'll presumably end up with a minimum of five or six seats, and at a maximum they'll get about 12 or 13. Presumably they'll get the Borders, obviously, and then we'll see parts of Edinburgh going Tory, alongside Stirling/Perth/maybe parts up north around Aberdeen.
Again that's quite incredible for them on the one hand, considering they've had little footing in Scotland for a long time...but I still think cause for celebration is limited. For all their improvement they'll still be a good way behind the SNP, and if you'd asked any SNP politician five years ago if they'd be disappointed with around 40-45 seats, they'd have probably laughed off the prospect at getting more than 20. Ultimately while we're seeing more difficulties for the SNP and a strong Tory challenge, they're still by far the biggest party up here, and I don't think that should be a cause for celebration for the Tories no matter how much of a relative improvement they manage next month. Although taking Robertson's seat would be a massive coup for them all the same.
I also think national-UK politics should be taken into account here. We're seeing a Tory surge/Labour decline at a time when across the UK the Tories are in their strongest position for decades, and Labour are in their weakest position for...well, almost a century. If Corbyn gets the boot and a credible leader comes in to replace him, we may see some of the unionist vote go back to Labour. And if Davidson resigns/leaves at some point to go down south, I struggle to see them getting a leader as good as she (relatively speaking) is.
Buzzfeed news article discussing it.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/...ous-conspiracy?utm_term=.vnj4Nx0eM#.vw5412KYP
Thanks for that.
My head hurts now. Just spent a while googling "James Ball", "Guardian" and "HSBC". Phew! Time spent in a bar over a few beers talking with that guy would absolutely fly by! I'd far rather buy him a few beers than pay George Osborne the sums HSBC has been paying to hear him speak - as if I ever could.
How are you imagining that article is backing you up? It's about the ability to share content.
I'm getting so many emails from the Green Party telling me how bloody happy they are about the results.
We gained very little, despite Labour capitulation.
This is why I don't go to meetings.
We gained very little, despite Labour capitulation.
This is why I don't go to meetings.
Still, bigger than UKIP.
I dream of the day we are obsolete cause the government has nicked our platform.
They are but, you know, name me a party that isn't?That and they're loonies.
Loonies with good intentions over loonies with bad ones.
Kinda got me there Dotty.
Corb would really love to be a Green. Never know these days.
He would. Poor fecker. All he meant to do was encourage debate. Things got rather out of hand.
This'll go down well...
This'll go down well...
Dan jarvis?
Though the corbynistas will probably try and lumber us with long Bailey or burgon as the next leader
This'll go down well...
It's a bit of a stupid premise isn't it?
We know that with a clean slate he's capable of getting elected into power. The trouble is, he's not got a clean slate, he's basically a war criminal and as slippery as they come. I mean, Jimmy Savile was a charismatic weirdo too and if you met him for the first time and you didn't know his crimes he could probably be quite charming.
Those pesky bastards wanting representation that reflects their views. I wish they'd just go away so the clearly electable candidate the PLP will put forward can win. I mean, they'll be so obviously brilliant that it seems a waste of time to offer an alternative, not to mention the savings on posting ballots out.
Yet to see anything from Jarvis that suggests he has any political talent whatsoever if I'm honest. That's the main problem generally really, it's difficult to point to anyone and say "they're definite leadership material". Though to be honest, the next leader is more likely to be doing the rebuilding job of Kinnock rather than the winning job of Blair.
Obviously it's not about Blair himself, just someone with his ability. And as I say above, there isn't one, so yeah it is kind of stupid, but it's more a response to the idea that the current Tory and Brexit narrative could never have been prevented.