The "heckler's veto" is also not protected speech, according to Supreme Court precedent. The ability to shout down a public speaker during an event is not protected by the First Amendment.
The "heckler's veto" is also not protected speech, according to Supreme Court precedent. The ability to shout down a public speaker during an event is not protected by the First Amendment.
I'm glad I went to college at a time when the biggest worry was finding a weekend keg party with $5 cups or making sure someone with a fake ID could buy booze. Now apparently the biggest issue is debating whether neo-fascists with a martyrdom complex can have a platform to tell all the sexually frustrated guys on campus that feminism is the reason they aren't getting laid.
From WaPo, their fitting tag is "Democracy Dies in Darkness", had this summary about the Darkness of the Republican Trump regime.
"The Senate bill to scale back the health-care law known as Obamacare is being written in secret by a single senator, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and a clutch of his senior aides.
Officials at numerous agencies of the Trump administration have stonewalled friendly Republicans in Congress — not to mention Democrats — by declining to share internal documents on sensitive matters or refusing to answer questions.
President Trump, meanwhile, is still forbidding the release of his tax returns, his aides have stopped releasing logs of visitors to the White House and his media aides have started banning cameras at otherwise routine news briefings, as happened Monday.
You can double that article and add in "no audio, no video" press conferences. Why doesn't the White House want to give press conferences? Here's why, Trump has no plans. He wants to flip and not be tied down to the truth because he'll inevitably change his mind and do whatever benefits him and his bank account.
And why can't Spicer or Sanders present the policy or position of Trump? Because only he knows what is going on in his head. That's why he can be for and against the Iraq war. That's why one minute he loved Hillary Clinton as a politician then later decided she was the worst thing ever. There's a Donald Trump tweet for two or three sides of every issue.
Why go on record when you are just going to wing it later? Trump is deathly afraid of the press because they might ask a tough question or something. He only likes fake news Fox News, he can flip flop through a softball interview telling him how great he is no problem.
She is generally referred to as the Maybot these days...Following the election her role is something akin to a lightning rod or a totem which will absorb all the toxicity of Brexit & austerity before being ritually consumed by her fellow party members. Her inability to connect with members of the public after the recent tragedy in London was pretty damning.
By whom? The media based in the London bubble? She connects just fine with me and likely most around the UK.
Toxicity of "austerity"? What bloody austerity? Get real, the money being poured into the NHS amongst other institutions is constantly being increased.
Get out of London and there is real fury that the democratically elected PM is expected to emote on camera for the benefit of those who don't believe in democracy in the first place.
Anybody with an ounce of sense understood why she didn't go anywhere near the crowds collected after the fire. In fact it's likely that the security forces advised against it. And that's where the Queen comes in, non political and can't be used to encourage protest.
I suppose it's just "coincidence" that all the protests against the goverment after the fire have so, so many carrying SWP posters? Of course it is. Oh yeah, I forgot, the protests were "hijacked". Can't get anyone to vote for you but that doesn't stop you making a load of noise and trouble and claiming that you are the "true" representatives of democracy.
Reading this thread it seems most here are commenting on US politics so I presume are from the US? So perhaps they don't understand the UK so well?
The UK is very divided, not between rich/poor as constantly reported and encouraged by Corbyn, but between those who live outside the metropolitan areas and those who don't. And what's never mentioned is that many, many have moved out of London and other cities over the last few decades because they realised where the cities were heading. A society where the middle are completely frozen out, neither able to compete with the very rich (a sizeable number who come from overseas) and will never be "in need" (an even bigger amount from overseas) so unable to access social housing. And not just housing, schools where their children are ignored in favour of coping with the huge amounts entering the school system with English as a second language. Health services stretched to deal with an influx of people with no history of health care and therefore bring all the problems of untreated and undiagnosed health problems. Let alone taking twice as much time to treat because of issues of language and culture. And lets not even get started on the various inner city councils who throw money at the various "minority groups" in order to buy the votes.
If the constituancy boundries are changed to reflect this movement, as they should be, it would become very clear what has happened.
I'm glad I went to college at a time when the biggest worry was finding a weekend keg party with $5 cups or making sure someone with a fake ID could buy booze. Now apparently the biggest issue is debating whether neo-fascists with a martyrdom complex can have a platform to tell all the sexually frustrated guys on campus that feminism is the reason they aren't getting laid.
I think the bigger issue facing college students these days is wondering how they are going to pay for the college education they just got when the first few jobs they land after graduating are insufficient to pay the bills and the student loans they probably took out.
Back when I went to college our biggest worry was which game we were playing that weekend: INWO, Cosmic Encounter, some train game based in Europe whose name escapes me right now, AD&D in Ravenloft or Dark Sun, etc.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I don't agree with your views. For instance: - Theresa May's approval rating in a poll a few days ago was -34, which indicates that considerably more than just Londoners are concerned about her (45% of respondents suggested she should resign). While she's undoubtedly had a hard time recently, I think visiting firemen at Grenfell, but no-one from the community, was a clear own-goal and did indeed reflect her relative weakness in communicating on an emotional level. - There are many people fed up with austerity. I have mixed feelings on that (as an accountant I'm concerned about debt levels), but as an employee of a local authority it's certainly discouraging when year after year pay rises are capped at below inflation, while deep cuts are still required in public services. With a disabled son the changes to national benefits don't exactly fill me with confidence either. - Resources may still be increasing in the health sector, but at significantly less than the rate of increasing need (primarily as a result of an aging population). The result of that can be seen in the steady deterioration in indicators such as treatment times and waiting lists. - The picture you paint of services being fine for the richest or the poorest, but not for those in the middle is unrealistic. Social housing is not a panacea in any area, whether metropolitan or otherwise. Health care provision is under strain in all areas, not just cities. The bulk of my working life has been associated with education and it's interesting how many London boroughs have been able to turn round performance over the last 20 years or so (they used to rank poorly compared to elsewhere in England, but now are well above average, despite the problems they face referred to in your post). - the Boundary Commissions for the UK countries do constantly review constituency boundaries to keep them up to date (on a non-political basis). I've been involved in a couple of those reviews and don't believe that shifting boundaries would make the sort of radical change you suggest.
@Grond0 as you work in education, you know that eal children get more money for the school (it is so they can receive the resources to help them access the curriculum which every child needs to access by law). London schools get more money because of this. Enough to get extra adult support. And wow! London schools are performing better! Not that I'm really complaining. I would be out of a job if people born outside of the UK didn't come to the UK to have babies.
The thing with "austerty" is people are willing to put up with it if they think it is in a good cause, if they see it achieving something, if they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and if they think everyone is contributing equally.
But this round of austerity has utterly failed to make a dent in the national debt, there is no sign of it ending - ever, and it is only the poor who are being expected to do without, whilst the wealthy are exempt.
Now, as Tacitus observed a couple of thousand years ago, if you don't supply the mob with suffient bread and circuses they will riot. I,e. Providing a reasonable level of public services for the poor isn't "charity", it essential to the survival of society, and as such must be prioritied ahead of "balancing the books". You can't balance the books when the mob is smashing everything in its path.
@Grond0 as you work in education, you know that eal children get more money for the school (it is so they can receive the resources to help them access the curriculum which every child needs to access by law). London schools get more money because of this. Enough to get extra adult support. And wow! London schools are performing better! Not that I'm really complaining. I would be out of a job if people born outside of the UK didn't come to the UK to have babies.
I agree they get more money to address the needs. However, there are other places in the country with similar levels of EAL (like Birmingham and Leicester), where performance has not improved over time like in most of London and I don't think it's just an issue of resourcing. There is an argument that the improvement may be partly due to parental aspirations being higher in London due to the nature of the people attracted there (as opposed to the improvement being due to school or local authority) - I don't know if that's the case.
The thing with "austerty" is people are willing to put up with it if they think it is in a good cause, if they see it achieving something, if they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and if they think everyone is contributing equally.
But this round of austerity has utterly failed to make a dent in the national debt, there is no sign of it ending - ever, and it is only the poor who are being expected to do without, whilst the wealthy are exempt.
Now, as Tacitus observed a couple of thousand years ago, if you don't supply the mob with suffient bread and circuses they will riot. I,e. Providing a reasonable level of public services for the poor isn't "charity", it essential to the survival of society, and as such must be prioritied ahead of "balancing the books". You can't balance the books when the mob is smashing everything in its path.
Austerity has made a huge dent in the deficit.
In other words, getting closer to spending what's coming in rather than mortgaging the future by year on year increasing the borrowing on top of what is earned.
What do you think happens to the national debt over time if instead of example, 10 million coming in and borrowing 15 million, 10 million comes in and 20 million is borrowed?
This is from the BBC,
The amount being borrowed each year has been reduced from 9.9% of GDP when the coalition government took power in 2010 to 2.6% of GDP in 2016 under the Conservative government, a reduction of almost three-quarters.
Of course the debt is still going up, we haven't paid off what has been borrowed and are still borrowing.
A reasonable level of public services? So what's reasonable? Spending 10 million quid on a building? Might have been the wrong thing to do, that will come out with an investigation. But don't buy the BS being peddled that nothing was spent. Or the BS that it was simply to make the richer people living nearby (who if they are British, pay a heck of a lot more tax) less of an eyesore.
Look at the figures, look at the percentages of tax coming in and where that tax is coming from. Look at the figures that show without doubt Osbourne lowered the tax burden on the least well paid by removing a sizeable number from paying any income tax at all.
And instead what we get? Oh the poor pay more tax because they buy non zero rated consumer goods. You couldn't make it up.
The "least well paid" don't earn anything at all, so they don't pay any income tax, so they don't benefit at all from low rates of income tax. They do pay VAT which has risen from 17.5% to 20% though.
It always make my mind boggle the way people object to paying income tax though. I may be poorer than I ever was, I can't afford a house, the roads are full of pot holes that wreck my car's suspension, schools can't afford to employ qualified teachers, the museums and libraries are closed, and I have to wait two weeks to see a doctor - but at least I'm paying 0.5% less income tax!!!
They say most of the Tory vote at the election came from people who are less well educated. And it's obvious why - they are clearly incapable of doing the maths that £10000 - 15% is less than £15000 - 20%.
The dashcam video of the Philando Castile shooting has now been released. Straight-up murder. The jury saw it. And if the jury saw it, and gave the verdict they did, they are as much as admitting that they are fine with any cop killing any black man for ANY reason. Because it will never happen to them.
Here is a photo of his license to carry, which, I would like to point out, that, if you are black, isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Philando Castile was dead the moment this piss-his-pants scared cop pulled him over, he just didn't know it yet:
This is Georgia, and that seat that has been in GOP hands since 1979. I imagine quite a few people there in Georgia are upset and seeing what Trump's actually doing but mostly they're too stuck in their ways.
So this will probably be another "moral victory" for Democrats but a victory-victory for Republicans.
What's funny is you got Newt Gingrich on Faux News saying "So it should come as no surprise to my fellow Georgians that just 3.5 percent of the last $15 million raised by Ossoff actually came from within the state." What's he saying here? Well he's not mentioning all the millions pouring in from out of state and outside forces like the President and the GOP machine pouring millions for Handel.
It seems he's trying to fear monger potential Republican voters by saying outside forces are conspiring against the great citizens of Georgia. So instead he wants to add another number to blindly vote along with whatever nonsense the GOP wants such as ruining education, giving tax cuts to the rich and taking away their healthcare. Dumbasses will be handing more power away from the State to a national party.
Whatever, Rome wasn't built in a day, there's only so much you can do to convince elderly people to think things through. But what's more concerning is the voter suppression and dirty tricks (again) by the GOP such as taking Obama's quote out of context.
EDIT: and yeah I can't see how you can view that dashcam video and not call it murder. "Sir I have to tell you.." bam bam bam bam bam
It was stupid to make a national referendum out of a District that went for Tom Price by +24 just 7 months ago. At worst, this district swung 20 points towards the Blue team, but the perception will be far more damaging than the reality. These are NOT the seats Dems need to pick off in 2018. They need ones that Republicans won by 5 or 6 points, not wins in Newt Gingrich's Congressional District, which Dems have as much business winning as Republicans do in Baltimore or San Francisco.
Police might think that the Black Lives Matter movement is troublesome now but wait until that one last straw finally breaks the camel's back. It is only a matter of time. My advice to all of them is "quit shooting first and asking questions later".
If only all that money spent on the political race could have gone to food banks, battered women's shelters, etc....
Police might think that the Black Lives Matter movement is troublesome now but wait until that one last straw finally breaks the camel's back. It is only a matter of time. My advice to all of them is "quit shooting first and asking questions later".
If only all that money spent on the political race could have gone to food banks, battered women's shelters, etc....
Having worked and studied with police intstructors regarding conflict management changes, but I would like to see more money and training go into conflict training and de-escalation work. I KNOW it can help.There is still a big mindset with the old way of police methods for sure, BUT it is changing in places, just not enough places, and not quick enough.
Police might think that the Black Lives Matter movement is troublesome now but wait until that one last straw finally breaks the camel's back. It is only a matter of time. My advice to all of them is "quit shooting first and asking questions later".
If only all that money spent on the political race could have gone to food banks, battered women's shelters, etc....
Having worked and studied with police intstructors regarding conflict management changes, but I would like to see more money and training go into conflict training and de-escalation work. I KNOW it can help.There is still a big mindset with the old way of police methods for sure, BUT it is changing in places, just not enough places, and not quick enough.
Unless police culture itself is uprooted and rethought from scratch, this will continue to happen. The start would be a required 4-year degree for law enforcement. Right now, the average time to train someone we send onto the streets with nearly unlimited power is 19 weeks. Less than 6 months. You could be out of high school and patrolling the streets by December. Insane. And, just like dealing with gun violence, this will NEVER happen, so what is happening with police shootings will keep happening. Actually, it's ALWAYS been happening, it's just that smart phones are now omnipresent and are recording the incidents. And that doesn't matter either. White, suburban juries look at the footage and say "one less black man I have to be scared of".
There is nothing wrong with shutting down everyone else's right to speak when they get invited by students? By being the thought police and making it so only your ideas are allowed to be expressed? I strongly disagree.
I'm not sure where the left got this idea that free speech equals shouting everyone else down at every possible opportunity amd not free debate or expression, that free speech is about de platforming everyone right of center in order to create an ideological echo chamber, but it's this totalitarian streak that is directly causing things like the Free Speech rallies at Berkeley turning into outright brawls when Antifa protesters show up. When you can't express yourself legitimately, doing so illegitimately is the only other option.
And it's not just Milo. It would distort the issue to make it just about him. It's the right, period. Gavin Mcinnis, Ben Shapiro, and more have all been banned on Universities. Ben Shapiro is too hardcore for these liberal students. That's insane.
TL DR: Constant censorship and thought policing has much more to do with principles of totalitarianism than principles of free speech.
You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to stop everyone else because you don't like their politics.
Despite Democrat Jon Ossoff spending more money than ever before in history during a House special election, the Republican took it again. I believe this is the 6th straight Republican victory since Trump.
It amazes me that it's now the left that takes and spends far more campaign money these days. This was also the case with Clinton's race.
I always felt money was a corrupting factor in politics so it doesnt bode well.
@WarChiefZeke I was listening to both the special elections in GA and the SC race, being I am so close to both borders here. I was just just a little surprised that both Repubs won, given all the hoohaw in DC lately. Seems like these days money is certainly not the only factor, perhaps even more so than in the recent past. As @Mathsorcerer mentioned all that dern money could go to some much needed relief for certain folks.
Despite Democrat Jon Ossoff spending more money than ever before in history during a House special election, the Republican took it again. I believe this is the 6th straight Republican victory since Trump.
It amazes me that it's now the left that takes and spends far more campaign money these days. This was also the case with Clinton's race.
I always felt money was a corrupting factor in politics so it doesnt bode well.
This, unsurprisingly, provides a complete lack of context for what these elections were, and, more importantly, where they took place. As if one district is the same as any other. ALL of the four Congressional districts that have been up grabs (Kansas, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina) are not just red, but deep, deep red. Districts Republicans won not just by double-digits in November, but by 20+ points. These races shouldn't even be on the radar. They are uncompetitive in any normal environment. The GA-06 has been Republican since 1979. All of these dsitricts went from 20+ to single digit wins in the span of 6 months. Democrats have no more business winning in these districts than Republicans would in San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland. The right can crow all they want about these victories, but not a single one of them should have ever been competitive to begin with. And similar shifts in +5 (not +20) Republican districts would flip the House.
Despite Democrat Jon Ossoff spending more money than ever before in history during a House special election, the Republican took it again. I believe this is the 6th straight Republican victory since Trump.
It amazes me that it's now the left that takes and spends far more campaign money these days. This was also the case with Clinton's race.
I always felt money was a corrupting factor in politics so it doesnt bode well.
This, unsurprisingly, provides a complete lack of context for what these elections were, and, more importantly, where they took place. As if one district is the same as any other. ALL of the four Congressional districts that have been up grabs (Kansas, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina) are not just red, but deep, deep red. Districts Republicans won not just by double-digits in November, but by 20+ points. These races shouldn't even be on the radar. They are uncompetitive in any normal environment. The GA-06 has been Republican since 1979. All of these dsitricts went from 20+ to single digit wins in the span of 6 months. Democrats have no more business winning in these districts than Republicans would in San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland. The right can crow all they want about these victories, but not a single one of them should have ever been competitive to begin with. And similar shifts in +5 (not +20) Republican districts would flip the House.
Unfortunately, these elections are winner-take-all so basically the left just pissed in the wind and wasted a lot of money. Why?
Despite Democrat Jon Ossoff spending more money than ever before in history during a House special election, the Republican took it again. I believe this is the 6th straight Republican victory since Trump.
It amazes me that it's now the left that takes and spends far more campaign money these days. This was also the case with Clinton's race.
I always felt money was a corrupting factor in politics so it doesnt bode well.
This, unsurprisingly, provides a complete lack of context for what these elections were, and, more importantly, where they took place. As if one district is the same as any other. ALL of the four Congressional districts that have been up grabs (Kansas, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina) are not just red, but deep, deep red. Districts Republicans won not just by double-digits in November, but by 20+ points. These races shouldn't even be on the radar. They are uncompetitive in any normal environment. The GA-06 has been Republican since 1979. All of these dsitricts went from 20+ to single digit wins in the span of 6 months. Democrats have no more business winning in these districts than Republicans would in San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland. The right can crow all they want about these victories, but not a single one of them should have ever been competitive to begin with. And similar shifts in +5 (not +20) Republican districts would flip the House.
Unfortunately, these elections are winner-take-all so basically the left just pissed in the wind and wasted a lot of money. Why?
Because they thought it was worth a shot. Ossof got the exact same percentage he got in the run-off. He pretty much maximized every non-rock solid Republican vote in the district. There aren't enough votes in the GA-06 for a Democrat to win. Most of these people would as soon vote for a Democrat as I would for a Republican. In other words, when hell freezes over.
The reason Tom Price was allowed to become HHS and give up his seat was because the disitrict went +24 for him in November. They had no worry they would lose the seat. But the district shifted 18 points. Now imagine that in a place where the Republican only won by 4 or 5 in November.
I thought Ossof had a shot until the last week, but the moment the polls tightened, I knew he was toast.
The 2018 Republican strategy is clear to me. It boils down to "f**k your feelings, snowflake". And if the left wants to win, they need to stop acting nice and getting everyone to try and like them. Quite honestly, they need to act more like I do in this thread, and vigorously defend themselves, and not back down an inch when attacked. And quit buying into the myth that white flight suburban Republican voters are attainable. They aren't. Turn out your base. And they did here, for the most part. There wasn't enough of them.
Btw, for recent historical reference, between March 2009 and May 2010, when the Tea Party was heating up, there were 7 special elections, and Democrats won all of them. 5 months later, the wave hit, and they lost their majority. Special elections almost always take place because of a retirement or someone leaving to serve in an Administration, and they almost always occur in districts that lean HEAVILY toward one side or the other, since no one would risk putting the seat up for grabs otherwise.
There is nothing wrong with shutting down everyone else's right to speak when they get invited by students? By being the thought police and making it so only your ideas are allowed to be expressed? I strongly disagree.
There is nothing wrong with protesting speakers, period. Protests are an exercise of free speech. You don't get to say "this guy gets free speech but those people do not." I mean that's exactly what you're saying, but you're being hypocritical in doing so.
The consequences of those protests may be a disinvitation to someone to speak at a particular venue but no one is guaranteed the right to speak at a public or private venue. Milo Yiannopolous isn't being robbed of his freedom of speech if a university disinvites him or a publisher declines to publish his book. Milo still gets to speak, still gets to write, and he may still get a platform elsewhere. But no one is entititled to a venue, and it is disingenuous to claim that anyone is.
Comments
"The Senate bill to scale back the health-care law known as Obamacare is being written in secret by a single senator, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and a clutch of his senior aides.
Officials at numerous agencies of the Trump administration have stonewalled friendly Republicans in Congress — not to mention Democrats — by declining to share internal documents on sensitive matters or refusing to answer questions.
President Trump, meanwhile, is still forbidding the release of his tax returns, his aides have stopped releasing logs of visitors to the White House and his media aides have started banning cameras at otherwise routine news briefings, as happened Monday.
Trump even refuses to acknowledge to the public that he plays golf during his frequent weekend visits to his private golf courses." - In Trump’s Washington, public business increasingly handled behind closed doors
You can double that article and add in "no audio, no video" press conferences. Why doesn't the White House want to give press conferences? Here's why, Trump has no plans. He wants to flip and not be tied down to the truth because he'll inevitably change his mind and do whatever benefits him and his bank account.
And why can't Spicer or Sanders present the policy or position of Trump? Because only he knows what is going on in his head. That's why he can be for and against the Iraq war. That's why one minute he loved Hillary Clinton as a politician then later decided she was the worst thing ever. There's a Donald Trump tweet for two or three sides of every issue.
Why go on record when you are just going to wing it later? Trump is deathly afraid of the press because they might ask a tough question or something. He only likes fake news Fox News, he can flip flop through a softball interview telling him how great he is no problem.
- CNN Reporter: White House Doesn’t Want Its ‘Evasive Answers’ On Tape
This is not normal.
The media based in the London bubble?
She connects just fine with me and likely most around the UK.
Toxicity of "austerity"?
What bloody austerity?
Get real, the money being poured into the NHS amongst other institutions is constantly being increased.
Get out of London and there is real fury that the democratically elected PM is expected to emote on camera for the benefit of those who don't believe in democracy in the first place.
Anybody with an ounce of sense understood why she didn't go anywhere near the crowds collected after the fire.
In fact it's likely that the security forces advised against it.
And that's where the Queen comes in, non political and can't be used to encourage protest.
I suppose it's just "coincidence" that all the protests against the goverment after the fire have so, so many carrying SWP posters?
Of course it is.
Oh yeah, I forgot, the protests were "hijacked".
Can't get anyone to vote for you but that doesn't stop you making a load of noise and trouble and claiming that you are the "true" representatives of democracy.
Reading this thread it seems most here are commenting on US politics so I presume are from the US?
So perhaps they don't understand the UK so well?
The UK is very divided, not between rich/poor as constantly reported and encouraged by Corbyn, but between those who live outside the metropolitan areas and those who don't. And what's never mentioned is that many, many have moved out of London and other cities over the last few decades because they realised where the cities were heading.
A society where the middle are completely frozen out, neither able to compete with the very rich (a sizeable number who come from overseas) and will never be "in need" (an even bigger amount from overseas) so unable to access social housing. And not just housing, schools where their children are ignored in favour of coping with the huge amounts entering the school system with English as a second language. Health services stretched to deal with an influx of people with no history of health care and therefore bring all the problems of untreated and undiagnosed health problems. Let alone taking twice as much time to treat because of issues of language and culture. And lets not even get started on the various inner city councils who throw money at the various "minority groups" in order to buy the votes.
If the constituancy boundries are changed to reflect this movement, as they should be, it would become very clear what has happened.
Back when I went to college our biggest worry was which game we were playing that weekend: INWO, Cosmic Encounter, some train game based in Europe whose name escapes me right now, AD&D in Ravenloft or Dark Sun, etc.
- Theresa May's approval rating in a poll a few days ago was -34, which indicates that considerably more than just Londoners are concerned about her (45% of respondents suggested she should resign). While she's undoubtedly had a hard time recently, I think visiting firemen at Grenfell, but no-one from the community, was a clear own-goal and did indeed reflect her relative weakness in communicating on an emotional level.
- There are many people fed up with austerity. I have mixed feelings on that (as an accountant I'm concerned about debt levels), but as an employee of a local authority it's certainly discouraging when year after year pay rises are capped at below inflation, while deep cuts are still required in public services. With a disabled son the changes to national benefits don't exactly fill me with confidence either.
- Resources may still be increasing in the health sector, but at significantly less than the rate of increasing need (primarily as a result of an aging population). The result of that can be seen in the steady deterioration in indicators such as treatment times and waiting lists.
- The picture you paint of services being fine for the richest or the poorest, but not for those in the middle is unrealistic. Social housing is not a panacea in any area, whether metropolitan or otherwise. Health care provision is under strain in all areas, not just cities. The bulk of my working life has been associated with education and it's interesting how many London boroughs have been able to turn round performance over the last 20 years or so (they used to rank poorly compared to elsewhere in England, but now are well above average, despite the problems they face referred to in your post).
- the Boundary Commissions for the UK countries do constantly review constituency boundaries to keep them up to date (on a non-political basis). I've been involved in a couple of those reviews and don't believe that shifting boundaries would make the sort of radical change you suggest.
But this round of austerity has utterly failed to make a dent in the national debt, there is no sign of it ending - ever, and it is only the poor who are being expected to do without, whilst the wealthy are exempt.
Now, as Tacitus observed a couple of thousand years ago, if you don't supply the mob with suffient bread and circuses they will riot. I,e. Providing a reasonable level of public services for the poor isn't "charity", it essential to the survival of society, and as such must be prioritied ahead of "balancing the books". You can't balance the books when the mob is smashing everything in its path.
In other words, getting closer to spending what's coming in rather than mortgaging the future by year on year increasing the borrowing on top of what is earned.
What do you think happens to the national debt over time if instead of example, 10 million coming in and borrowing 15 million, 10 million comes in and 20 million is borrowed?
This is from the BBC,
The amount being borrowed each year has been reduced from 9.9% of GDP when the coalition government took power in 2010 to 2.6% of GDP in 2016 under the Conservative government, a reduction of almost three-quarters.
Of course the debt is still going up, we haven't paid off what has been borrowed and are still borrowing.
A reasonable level of public services?
So what's reasonable?
Spending 10 million quid on a building?
Might have been the wrong thing to do, that will come out with an investigation. But don't buy the BS being peddled that nothing was spent. Or the BS that it was simply to make the richer people living nearby (who if they are British, pay a heck of a lot more tax) less of an eyesore.
Look at the figures, look at the percentages of tax coming in and where that tax is coming from. Look at the figures that show without doubt Osbourne lowered the tax burden on the least well paid by removing a sizeable number from paying any income tax at all.
And instead what we get?
Oh the poor pay more tax because they buy non zero rated consumer goods.
You couldn't make it up.
It always make my mind boggle the way people object to paying income tax though. I may be poorer than I ever was, I can't afford a house, the roads are full of pot holes that wreck my car's suspension, schools can't afford to employ qualified teachers, the museums and libraries are closed, and I have to wait two weeks to see a doctor - but at least I'm paying 0.5% less income tax!!!
They say most of the Tory vote at the election came from people who are less well educated. And it's obvious why - they are clearly incapable of doing the maths that £10000 - 15% is less than £15000 - 20%.
Here is a photo of his license to carry, which, I would like to point out, that, if you are black, isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Philando Castile was dead the moment this piss-his-pants scared cop pulled him over, he just didn't know it yet:
This is Georgia, and that seat that has been in GOP hands since 1979. I imagine quite a few people there in Georgia are upset and seeing what Trump's actually doing but mostly they're too stuck in their ways.
Well that and a little bit of the old voter suppression, the systematic disenfranchisement of asian and black voters, will probably carry the day for Handel.
So this will probably be another "moral victory" for Democrats but a victory-victory for Republicans.
What's funny is you got Newt Gingrich on Faux News saying "So it should come as no surprise to my fellow Georgians that just 3.5 percent of the last $15 million raised by Ossoff actually came from within the state."
What's he saying here? Well he's not mentioning all the millions pouring in from out of state and outside forces like the President and the GOP machine pouring millions for Handel.
It seems he's trying to fear monger potential Republican voters by saying outside forces are conspiring against the great citizens of Georgia. So instead he wants to add another number to blindly vote along with whatever nonsense the GOP wants such as ruining education, giving tax cuts to the rich and taking away their healthcare. Dumbasses will be handing more power away from the State to a national party.
Whatever, Rome wasn't built in a day, there's only so much you can do to convince elderly people to think things through. But what's more concerning is the voter suppression and dirty tricks (again) by the GOP such as taking Obama's quote out of context.
EDIT: and yeah I can't see how you can view that dashcam video and not call it murder. "Sir I have to tell you.." bam bam bam bam bam
/s
Ppl r dumb. Kiss ur living wage goodbye
If only all that money spent on the political race could have gone to food banks, battered women's shelters, etc....
I'm not sure where the left got this idea that free speech equals shouting everyone else down at every possible opportunity amd not free debate or expression, that free speech is about de platforming everyone right of center in order to create an ideological echo chamber, but it's this totalitarian streak that is directly causing things like the Free Speech rallies at Berkeley turning into outright brawls when Antifa protesters show up. When you can't express yourself legitimately, doing so illegitimately is the only other option.
And it's not just Milo. It would distort the issue to make it just about him. It's the right, period. Gavin Mcinnis, Ben Shapiro, and more have all been banned on Universities. Ben Shapiro is too hardcore for these liberal students. That's insane.
TL DR: Constant censorship and thought policing has much more to do with principles of totalitarianism than principles of free speech.
You have the right to speak. You don't have the right to stop everyone else because you don't like their politics.
It amazes me that it's now the left that takes and spends far more campaign money these days. This was also the case with Clinton's race.
I always felt money was a corrupting factor in politics so it doesnt bode well.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/politics/ossoff-handel-georgia-house-special-election.html?referer=http://m.facebook.com/
As @Mathsorcerer mentioned all that dern money could go to some much needed relief for certain folks.
The reason Tom Price was allowed to become HHS and give up his seat was because the disitrict went +24 for him in November. They had no worry they would lose the seat. But the district shifted 18 points. Now imagine that in a place where the Republican only won by 4 or 5 in November.
I thought Ossof had a shot until the last week, but the moment the polls tightened, I knew he was toast.
The 2018 Republican strategy is clear to me. It boils down to "f**k your feelings, snowflake". And if the left wants to win, they need to stop acting nice and getting everyone to try and like them. Quite honestly, they need to act more like I do in this thread, and vigorously defend themselves, and not back down an inch when attacked. And quit buying into the myth that white flight suburban Republican voters are attainable. They aren't. Turn out your base. And they did here, for the most part. There wasn't enough of them.
The consequences of those protests may be a disinvitation to someone to speak at a particular venue but no one is guaranteed the right to speak at a public or private venue. Milo Yiannopolous isn't being robbed of his freedom of speech if a university disinvites him or a publisher declines to publish his book. Milo still gets to speak, still gets to write, and he may still get a platform elsewhere. But no one is entititled to a venue, and it is disingenuous to claim that anyone is.
Or at least, the First Amendment will protect the latter but not the former.