Best Of

Ironic that the 'BBC Verify' post in the live feed about the two child benefit cap and poverty uses the bullshit 'relative poverty' measure.

You may not like it, that's fair enough, but it's a clear, objective, and widely used measure. Hardly something to criticise BBC Verify for.

Out of interest what would you propose as the measure of poverty? Does a child need to be starving, in rags, no shoes?

It is not legitimate. Using a relative measure means someone can be perfectly well-off but because others are even better off the former are deemed to be 'poor'. And if those even better off suddenly have a great downturn in fortune then the previously 'poor' magically becomes 'wealthy' despite having no extra money whatsoever.

An absolute measure is fairer.

An absolute measure at what level?

Enough to meet essentials, with a small amount left over for minor luxuries (meals out, cinema etc) and modest saving.

Closer but still relative not absolute poverty.

Absolute poverty is not having a roof over your head, not having enough food and not having enough to drink and not having enough clothing, especially to keep you warm in winter

Absolute pov is not having a mobile. Just try functioning without one.

Flicking through the last thread I noticed a few of the Reform Lite posters criticising Rachel for being photographed with a chess board on her desk and one of them suggested she was trying to make herself look clever. She was infact underr 14 chess champion.

I think there's a lot of misogyny when it comes to Rachel. Would people be so patronising if it was Gove for example?

As always, two things can be true at once.

Is some criticism of Reeves misogynistic? Yes, because misogyny exists and I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say that woman are often held to different standards. If you accept that then it does of course naturally follow that some of the criticism she attracts comes from that place.

But let’s not conflate criticism of her as being a poor steward of the economy as being down to her gender. She’s a poor steward of the economy. Her decisions have been highly questionable. Her political tactics have all backfired. She has contributed to a significant amount of economic uncertainty and loss of confidence in the UK. Criticism does not always equal prejudice.

Wasn't her "under 14 chess champion" a bit of an embellishment? I'm sure there is something on the web about it.

Cast iron citation

“I’m sure there is something on the web about it.”.

Can’t find more solid evidence than that.

Oh. Sorry…you were “just asking the question”. My bad

There is a cast iron law of nature that there is everything on the web about everything. If one delves deep enough - and some of us on PB are well on the way in their bathyscaphe - one can find detailed evidence* that Ms Reeves is a tentacled monster from the Cthulhu abyss, formerly Chancellor of the dead city of R'lyeh.

*Which, for the record, I do *not* believe for a moment.

I don't know whether it is just because Google made their search so rubbish, but I find this increasingly not to be the case. I expect the web to contain all information, but often it either isn't there, or it isn't findable (which amounts to the same thing). Information on paper seems to last longer.

Google does seem to have gotten pretty useless in the last few years, good thing they are basically a monopoly. Amazon seem to be going the same way - although a typically grasping company that treats workers like robots i could at least previously say they provided me a good service.

Ironic that the 'BBC Verify' post in the live feed about the two child benefit cap and poverty uses the bullshit 'relative poverty' measure.

You may not like it, that's fair enough, but it's a clear, objective, and widely used measure. Hardly something to criticise BBC Verify for.

Out of interest what would you propose as the measure of poverty? Does a child need to be starving, in rags, no shoes?

When we interrogate our idea of poverty it is always a relative concept at its core, because poverty is ultimately about being excluded from the normal patterns of consumption and participation in our current society. In my view it is so-called 'absolute' poverty measures that are bullshit.

Not being able to 'keep up with the Joneses' in a neighbourhood pissing contest doesn't make someone poor. It makes them unable to afford an unnecessary and 'fashionable' splurging of cash you don't have on things you don't need. And the idea that should be subsidised by the taxpayer is just another tier in the cake of relative poverty bullshit.

Edited: as an aside, I'll be AFK for the Budget, which is a shame but needs must.

It's not about keeping up with Jones's. The point is that what we might consider an absolute poverty line now would be very different to the absolute poverty line 50 years ago, because we have different expectations about what constitutes a minimum standard of living, and these expectations are related to what we consider a normal standard of living. This is why I find the idea of some kind of objective and immutable poverty line fundamentally dishonest.

FPT ref DavidL's comments on juries

1) "pull jurors out of a hat" - my experience is being sorted into groups of 16 at the beginning of the week but it could just be done by computer in a matter of seconds once the juror register is complete
2) Judge briefing the Jury on their duties and responsibilities - apart from case specific issues this is boilerplate. Could be online with a little quiz and declaration, e.g. "If I do my own research on the internet" will I a) be better briefed than the legal counsel, b) be helping my fellow jurors to understand the case or c) do 6 months d) all of the above?
3) Check in advance whether witnesses need screens and prepare. In your cases I assume it's a given, so the screens should be there by default.

None of the above has to be on the critical path.

My experience is that if you're assigned to a trial in the morning then it's 11.30am by the time you're sat down, HHJ does his solemn briefing etc, now 12, they have a brief conflab and decide that there isn't time for 2 opening addresses before lunch, "jury will only remember one side", so break. 2pm before you're back in court in the afternoon, if Judge or barristers don't have an afternoon clash.

There are delays around sending Juries out and reassembling them, but they can just be sent to the next room rather than allowed to disperse.

Juries can be taken off the critical path for most of it. Leveson has just blamed them for the inefficiency of the professionals involved.

There is no way 2 would work - most people will just fast forward the video or put it on and do something else

Have all the jury prep etc run by court staff. The day before.

Have jury prep as a courthouse function, run by staff. As a continual operation. Lining up juries, get them sorted, warned, lanyarded.

So 9am, the judge, lawyers, etc all roll in together.

Judge can have the option to say - “I don’t look this jury, do you have a similar one? But in a shade of mauve?”

You're right, of course you're right, but you know the objections.

Spending a bit more to get a lot more is still spending more, and we've conditioned ourselves to not want that.

It's moving spending from frontline staff to backstage. And we've massively conditioned ourselves to not want that.

Yet again on pb the most vociferous criticism of the removal of jury trials comes from the very same people who want to massively cut public spending and reduce public sector pay and benefits dramatically.

The concept of we only get what we are willing to pay for seems to have completely passed them by.

I have no idea if this is true, but it is rational for opinions to come in related sets, and opinions which don't arise in related ways lack an underlying coherence. Rather than turning the point into a meaningless (and maybe unverified) piece of ad hominem, it would be more useful to examine the relation of the set of opinions, and consider its worth.

What is irrational about wanting to have a much smaller state while keeping the jury system? We had juries when we had a much smaller state. (I am not proposing either, personally, but there is nothing counter intuitive about it.)

The frustration is the party led by this group of people have been in power most of my lifetime, and to be fair match the views of the electorate in not wanting to increase taxes.

So we have court rooms out of use because of leaks, because we don't want to spend money.
We have a lack of lawyers and judges, because we don't want to spend money.
Our prisons can't cope, because we don't want to spend money.
Prisoners come out early, without any thought of rehabilitation and commit more crime.

Whilst I would prefer jury trials and functioning prisons myself, it does grate to hear the attacks on the status quo from the supporters of the establishment party with zero consideration of how we get here, or any serious thought on how we can change course and what resources that requires.

Except for a very short time under Mrs T, public expenditure has risen throughout the last decades. The state in various forms manages 44% of total expenditure, over £40,000 per household, just a little short of the highest in Europe and in the middle of the developed pack. Despite that there is not a single area not crying out for much more spending. Something is wrong with the model, but it isn't that taxes are very significantly too low.

We have no money

Yet we are spending £700 million on saving a handful of salmon. Billions on an armoured vehicle that literally makes the occupants chronically ill. We can’t find GPs, while we train GPs who can’t get jobs. We have no money to look after children with special needs, but councils are block booking taxis to send them to school - as opposed to a school bus.

It’s feast-or-famine mode spending. Often on insane things.

This is the fault of the Treasury - insane budget rules where we seem to look at today and don't worry about tomorrow. The GP issue is a perfect example - we can't afford to hire them full time, but we can afford emergency cover. Or transport - can't afford a bus but can afford emergency cover.

Do you get it yet? We cut because the Treasury says we must cut. But cuts to provision do not remove the need - which remains. And emergency provision must be done - from a separate budget - which costs more than the cut.

I keep saying we need to invest in this stuff and be told we have no money. We do - we're literally burning it. Will need a short transition where we both burn cash and invest cash, but then no more bonfires.

This post hits so hard. It seems like Westminster and Whitehall know it too, but won't do anything.

I am utterly fucking sick of this stupidity. Its as bad up here as well. Winter snot season - schools asking parents to send their kids in with tissues as the school is running out. Teachers joking about wanting classroom supplies for presents from their kids instead of sweeties. There's literally no money at the front line - but we have schools with heating stuck on full so that everyone melts and windows need to keep being opened (in the summer as well!) because budget rules don't allow repairs when the school is scheduled for replacement in 2019.

Bureaucrats drown in the micro whilst missing the macro and strategic. You can't the detail because the structure is wrong, but you can't spend money on the structure because you're spending too much money in emergency micro fixes.

House building. Everyone agrees we need to build more houses but we're building less. Why?
Land banking by developers
Arcane endless planning regulations
Housing Associations starved of resources
A comprehensive lack of builders sparkies joiners plumbers plasterers etc etc - oh and we'd have to import much of the materiel because we've stopped making them because lack of money.
But we can't import as we left the EU and they cost more. And we don't like all these forrin workers taking jobs from the untrained unwilling flag shagging fucks.

FFS. Start at the strategic. OK, we need to build 1.5m houses the fuck yesterday.
So we need to train the people who will build them. FE colleges here is cash. And a marketing campaign to make building cool
We need to invest in a brickworks and other stuff - tax incentives to get manufacturing here
We need to allow LHAs to borrow to build
We need to bonfire the planning barriers
We need to give the land bankers 6 months to start or lose the land
All to build a flood of apartments and starter homes at a social rent as never for sale. Which allows a significant drop in % of wages wasted on rent which allows more money to circulate in the economy which means jobs and more taxes which pays back the investment in skills etc

Will get any of that? Will we bollocks.

Ironic that the 'BBC Verify' post in the live feed about the two child benefit cap and poverty uses the bullshit 'relative poverty' measure.

You may not like it, that's fair enough, but it's a clear, objective, and widely used measure. Hardly something to criticise BBC Verify for.

Out of interest what would you propose as the measure of poverty? Does a child need to be starving, in rags, no shoes?

It is not legitimate. Using a relative measure means someone can be perfectly well-off but because others are even better off the former are deemed to be 'poor'. And if those even better off suddenly have a great downturn in fortune then the previously 'poor' magically becomes 'wealthy' despite having no extra money whatsoever.

An absolute measure is fairer.

Yep. Relative poverty is NOT a measure of individual circumstance, it is a measure of inequality. The left love it. Absolute poverty is whether you can heat your house, eat food etc. The almost universal adoption of relative poverty has not helped.

So what? If the point of child benefit is to encourage people to have children and to ensure that children are in a position to feel safe, to learn, and to thrive, then relative poverty seems reasonable.

Ironic that the 'BBC Verify' post in the live feed about the two child benefit cap and poverty uses the bullshit 'relative poverty' measure.

You may not like it, that's fair enough, but it's a clear, objective, and widely used measure. Hardly something to criticise BBC Verify for.

Out of interest what would you propose as the measure of poverty? Does a child need to be starving, in rags, no shoes?

It is not legitimate. Using a relative measure means someone can be perfectly well-off but because others are even better off the former are deemed to be 'poor'. And if those even better off suddenly have a great downturn in fortune then the previously 'poor' magically becomes 'wealthy' despite having no extra money whatsoever.

An absolute measure is fairer.

An absolute measure at what level?

Enough to meet essentials, with a small amount left over for minor luxuries (meals out, cinema etc) and modest saving.

FPT ref DavidL's comments on juries

1) "pull jurors out of a hat" - my experience is being sorted into groups of 16 at the beginning of the week but it could just be done by computer in a matter of seconds once the juror register is complete
2) Judge briefing the Jury on their duties and responsibilities - apart from case specific issues this is boilerplate. Could be online with a little quiz and declaration, e.g. "If I do my own research on the internet" will I a) be better briefed than the legal counsel, b) be helping my fellow jurors to understand the case or c) do 6 months d) all of the above?
3) Check in advance whether witnesses need screens and prepare. In your cases I assume it's a given, so the screens should be there by default.

None of the above has to be on the critical path.

My experience is that if you're assigned to a trial in the morning then it's 11.30am by the time you're sat down, HHJ does his solemn briefing etc, now 12, they have a brief conflab and decide that there isn't time for 2 opening addresses before lunch, "jury will only remember one side", so break. 2pm before you're back in court in the afternoon, if Judge or barristers don't have an afternoon clash.

There are delays around sending Juries out and reassembling them, but they can just be sent to the next room rather than allowed to disperse.

Juries can be taken off the critical path for most of it. Leveson has just blamed them for the inefficiency of the professionals involved.

The court hours and all the wasted time etc are horrendous, all down to feathering lawyers and judges pockets.

Yeah. We should abandon trial altogether. Waste of time.

I suggest a leg of darts to decide guilt or innocence and then a roll of the dice for the length of sentence. Stream it on netflix with decent product placement and we could not just save a fortune but get some revenue in too.

Nonsense.

Instead of trial and prison - a TV show where the suspects are hunted by the public/professional hunters.

If they are caught, they die. If they stay alive and free for 30 days, they get a cash prize.

Turn justice into a profit centre, with popular participation.

Been watching Running Man?

We went to see it yesterday. Hokum, but entertaining nonetheless

Ironic that the 'BBC Verify' post in the live feed about the two child benefit cap and poverty uses the bullshit 'relative poverty' measure.

You may not like it, that's fair enough, but it's a clear, objective, and widely used measure. Hardly something to criticise BBC Verify for.

Out of interest what would you propose as the measure of poverty? Does a child need to be starving, in rags, no shoes?

It is not legitimate. Using a relative measure means someone can be perfectly well-off but because others are even better off the former are deemed to be 'poor'. And if those even better off suddenly have a great downturn in fortune then the previously 'poor' magically becomes 'wealthy' despite having no extra money whatsoever.

An absolute measure is fairer.

Yep. Relative poverty is NOT a measure of individual circumstance, it is a measure of inequality. The left love it. Absolute poverty is whether you can heat your house, eat food etc. The almost universal adoption of relative poverty has not helped.

I can see it having some utility as a measure, but it is reported on as if it is like absolute poverty, which I think confuses what is being talked about as they are not the same thing and one is more vital a concern than the other.