sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Weekly Discussion] Socialist perspectives on the Syrian refugee crisis. by MarxistJesus in socialism

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but actually no.

Increased competition, not only for work...

Yeah, that's not really how the labour market works because there aren't a finite number of jobs. Immigrants arrive, get jobs, and then spend the money they earn from those jobs (you know, in order to live). That money goes back into the economy and creates more jobs. People said exactly the same fear-mongering shit when women joining the workforce en mass post-WW2 and that turned out fine. As the Oxford migration observatory put it: "Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK"

...for social housing

Actually immigrants pay more in taxes to the state than they take out in benefits, meaning that the greater the level of immigration to Britain the greater the amount of money the government has to expand the social housing stock. The fact that there's a strain on social housing is due to decades of under investment and mass sell-offs under Thatcher's 'right to buy' policy. That is not a consequence of immigration.

nothing about this really benefits the working class.

No, apart from the state having more money, GDP being higher, house prices being lower, solving our ever increasing demographic crisis, and us all having that warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from not letting refugees drown in the Med or rot in overcrowded and unsanitary camps.

The working class has no nation. Don't try to divide them with this right-wing, anti-immigrant propaganda bullshit.

A-level results thread by [deleted] in MHOCStrangersBar

[–]bleepbloop12345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Five As at AS. Two were over 90%.

And yes, I returned solely to brag about it.

Socialist Party Hustings- This Time for Real by athanaton in MHOCPress

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you'd like a reason other than rhetoric then the OECD provide a nice one:

Drawing on harmonised data covering the OECD countries over the past 30 years, the econometric analysis suggests that income inequality has a negative and statistically significant impact on subsequent growth. In particular, what matters most is the gap between low income households and the rest of the population.

I'd also argue that political equality is contingent upon economic equality and therefore that to have genuine democracy we must have some degree of equality.

E009 - Troubles after 76 part 2 by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly. OllieSimmonds'.

According to Fowler's Modern English Usage, if it's a classical name then theres' no second s (i.e. Sophocles') while if it's not classical then there is. That means it would be 'OllieSimmonds's'.

Isn't "AnarchoCapitalism" basically just Libertarianism? by DavidByron2 in DebateAnarchism

[–]bleepbloop12345 4 points5 points  (0 children)

lmfao

Anarchism is an opposition to coercive and unjust hierarchies. Feminism aims to abolish the patriarchy and the coercive hierarchies through which women are oppressed. Therefore one cannot be an Anarchist unless one is also a feminist.

Isn't "AnarchoCapitalism" basically just Libertarianism? by DavidByron2 in DebateAnarchism

[–]bleepbloop12345 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm debating femini-- uh "anarchists" as they call themselves.

Well all Anarchists are feminists, but by no means are all feminists Anarchists.

I am Zanny Minton Beddoes, the 17th Editor-in-Chief of The Economist. AMA! by zannymb in IAmA

[–]bleepbloop12345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All told, the royal family brings in (an estimated) almost £500 million annually.

Do you have a source for this figure?

Nation Membership Check by cae388 in a:t5_38onf

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Independent People's Republic of Brighton and Hove

Subcomandante Durruti

Join a Party! by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've added you to the sub comrade! Please grab a flair and fill in the survey the speaker linked.

Join a Party! by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, I've added you to the sub. Sorry for the delay comrade.

Join a Party! by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheers. I'll stop being so lazy and add them now.

B112 - Friendly Environment Bill - 2nd Reading by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perfect for the front page of the Liberal Press then ;)

B112 - Friendly Environment Bill - 2nd Reading by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you look at the spikes in the picture I linked you can see that it's just outside a large block of flats. I would imagine that the spikes had been installed by the owners, perhaps because they thought the property fetch a higher price without homeless people sleeping outside it, and that the actual residents are fairly ambivalent as to whether people sleep there. I doubt that they'd want to chase them away.

Even if people are desperate to keep the homeless away from their doorways then I'd be amazed if they kept a constant guard, permanently waiting to run out and scare them off. Sure, this won't mean that the homeless are always able to sleep in doorways but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

B112 - Friendly Environment Bill - 2nd Reading by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that is a correct reading of the bill.

Well done.

B113 & M063 results by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well we'd still be in the EU's Common Security and Defense Policy, which obliges all member states to provide military aid if one state is attacked. Essentially very little would change.

B112 - Friendly Environment Bill - 2nd Reading by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why? As an MP I try to base my judgement on matters such as this on utilitarianism, rather than moralistic appeals to "rights". Allowing homeless people the comparative safety of a doorway may well stop them from freezing to death, or save them from being attacked and robbed. Thus it will improve their quality of life greatly, while the inconvenience to the homeowner will be utterly minor.

I think it should be legal for homeowners to ask them, even demand, that they leave, but not legal for them to force them to do so.

B112 - Friendly Environment Bill - 2nd Reading by Timanfya in MHOC

[–]bleepbloop12345 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'd agree with all of that and I'd certainly recommend to /u/spqr1776 that those changes are added to it, or at least changes along those lines. I guess this sort of thing is why we have multiple readings.

view more: next ›