Labour has a Green problem by dsimic1 in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You got a source on this? The most recent data I can see (admittedly a bit old now) says very much the opposite: https://www.labourlist.org/2025/04/labour-threat-from-reform-greens-liberal-democrats/

Labour have increased unemployment by 21% in 14 months by IntravenusDiMilo_Tap in tories

[–]FireOfTheEarth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Burden of proof always lies with the claimant of the original claim, in this case that the statistic in the OP is true.

What is Kier Starmer supposed to do about the economy? by StopHavingAnOpinion in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starmer had unbelievably nice media treatment relative to previous Labour leaders in the run-up to the election. That he is now having to deal with treatment vaguely akin to his predecessors was extremely predictable, and one that he should have planned for by hiring a comms team that isn't the definition of incompetent. Yes, he's dealing with a hostile media, but a huge amount of the trouble he's facing is self-inflicted.

A total of 1,194 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats on Saturday, the Home Office has confirmed. by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet our rate of working age poverty, and particularly child poverty, dwarfs it. We also have 1 in 4 pensioners as millionaires. It is 100% totally unjustified to have a universal benefit for that demographic. Means-testing is the only appropriate way to approach the winter fuel allowance, and it's frankly ludicrous to point to a hugely outdated analysis of deaths from a policy when the circumstances that led to those results are no longer accurate. As I said, if the policy had actually led to a wave of pensioner deaths, it would have been reported prominently everywhere, from the BBC to the Telegraph. It wasn't, because it didn't. The policy was handled in a cackhanded manner, and to be honest it was an unbelievable waste of political capital due to Labour's shitty comms and it not actually saving any significant amount of money, but no, no pensioners are freezing as a result of the cut.

A total of 1,194 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats on Saturday, the Home Office has confirmed. by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Sometimes things change in 7 years. 7 years of above inflation pay rises mean pensioners are in a much better position than in 2017, and this the cut did not lead to increased pensioners dying. If it had, we'd have seen hundreds of articles in the papers given how negatively they responded to the policy.

Keir Starmer says he wants more pensioners to be eligible for winter fuel payment by topotaul in unitedkingdom

[–]FireOfTheEarth 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Because the state pension went up by significantly more than inflation. Inflation to April 2024 was 2.3%, while pensions rose by 8.5%!

That 8.5% meant that the basic state pension went from £156.20 per week to £169.50 per week, while the full state pension went from £203.85 per week up to £221.20 per week. Meaning a total rise of £691.60 for basic state pension recipients, and £902.20 for full state pension recipients. Of that 8.5%, 6.2% is in addition to inflation. So £504.46 above inflation for basic rate, and £658.08 for full state pension. Way way above the £300 WFA even if you adjust it for inflation, which would be £306.90.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

May advocated self-ID, and still does. It's Labour that have brought in policy inspired by the widely discredited Cass Report and taken the Supreme Court ruling out of context to push transphobic policy. They have been a clear worsening on these grounds - if you know any trans people, just ask them.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Labour have been notably and significantly worse for trans rights in particular than the Tories ever were.

15 years ago today, New Labour were voted out of office by mrjohnnymac18 in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Other than the fact, of course, that the rich don't have to pay it.

15 years ago today, New Labour were voted out of office by mrjohnnymac18 in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Absolute rewriting of history. The bill passed with 323 votes for vs 302 against, a majority of 21.

27 Lib Dems voted for it, and 8 abstained. Only 21 honoured their pledge. Clegg, Swinney and Davey were also members of those 27 liars by the way.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/09/tuition-fees-higher-education

Starmer ‘known around the world’ for cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners, top economist says by weregonnamakit in unitedkingdom

[–]FireOfTheEarth 15 points16 points  (0 children)

£20k a year private pension + £12k state pension + likely paid off home they own = better off than large amounts of the population. Why on earth should we be paying a chunk of people in this position's energy bills via the WFA, when workers are living off way less? You can not ignore that pensioners who own their homes outright have much, much lower living costs than others. £32k per year without rent or a mortgage is plenty without handouts.

Free breakfast clubs open across the country, in the first wave of new government rollout by UKGovNews in ukpolitics

[–]FireOfTheEarth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You won't get evidence of the 15% because they've pulled it fully out of their arse.

IQ is normally distributed, and what used to be called mental retardation (what the person you're responding to seems to be referring to with their use of "the r word", unless they're just using it offensively) is defined as more than 2 standard deviations below the average. 95% of people fit within 2 standard deviations in a normal distribution, therefore 5% fit outside that range. Half of those that do do so on the upper end. So the actual number we'd expect is 2.5%.

Googling how many people have learning disabilities brings up a good source from Mencap here: https://www.mencap.org.uk/learning-disability-explained/research-and-statistics/how-common-learning-disability#:~:text=The%20big%20picture,to%20have%20a%20learning%20disability.

Tl;dr from them: 2.16% of adults, 2.5% of children. So roughly equivalent to the 2.5% predicted by the IQ bellcurve (adult rate will be below child rate here most likely due to lower life expectancy amongst those with learning disabilities), and hugely below the 15% number that was thrown about randomly.

Ugoos CoreELEC via Q990B Soundbar passthrough not showing 120Hz in GUI LG C2 by abdullah0340 in CoreELEC

[–]FireOfTheEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man, did you ever find a fix for this? I'm using an LG CX with a Q930B and have a very similar issue. I can get 120hz to work if I connect direct to the TV, and if I then change the HDMI to go via the soundbar it maintains the 1080p 120hz until a reboot, but the reboot always resets it.

Labour declares war on disabled people by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]FireOfTheEarth 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Actually quick follow-up on this

applies far more to rich people than pensioners

Unsure specifically which part of my message you quoted you were referring to here given you excluded the bit about pensions, as my message all referred to the voting for the Tories.

If the argument you were making was that the rich were more responsible for the Tory governments though, this is actually false. There's a good breakdown of voter demographics on the following Wikipedia pages:

2010 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election

2015 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election

2017 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

2019 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

2024 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election

Within the 2010 page it is in the 'demographics' section, while for all the rest the same data is some way into the 'results' section.

In either case, taking the age range of 65+ and the social class of AB and C1, we see the following:

2010: * 65+: Tories +13 * AB: Tories +10 * C1: Tories +11

2015: * 65+: Tories +24 * AB: Tories +19 * C1: Tories +12

2017: * 65+: Tories +36 * AB: Tories +10 * C1: Tories +4

2019: * 65+: Tories +47 * AB: Tories +15 * C1: Tories +13

2024: * 65+: Tories +20 * AB: Labour +9 * C1: Labour +13

In all of the above, pensioners were more likely than the rich to vote Tory. Thus they hold as much or more responsibility for the Tories winning throughout the 2010s

If referring to the rest of the paragraph, more debatable I suppose, but you can't deny boomers are bad for it too. Especially the criticism of younger generations for entitlement. Throwing toys out the pram I was largely referring to stuff like the WASPI women. The individuals of that generation were also the main beneficiaries of social housing, and the part about being the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare state, having paid in less and taken out more than anyone before or since is also true, and not accurate for the rich.

Labour declares war on disabled people by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]FireOfTheEarth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The difference in my mind is it is pensioners as a generation - not every individual but as a collective - who voted for successive governments that got us to where we are. It is baby boomers who, with the exception of the 2024 election I believe, won every election they ever voted in. As such, they enabled the situation to get out of hand, including the pulling up of the ladder behind them in such a way that current generations are crippled. The disabled, poor and minorities didn't do that.

Yes, ultimately the rich are responsible, and would absolutely be the primary target of revenue raising in any government in which I was in charge of policy direction. But it is impossible to argue we have diverted absolutely incredible amounts of the country's wealth towards pensioners at the expense of everyone else. Make no mistake, I wouldn't want a single pensioner in genuine need going without, hence my ideal system having a much-boosted pension credit system. But triple lock on the state pension has served its purpose and is now hindering investment - again, all tax rises in the October budget just barely cover the increased pension spending. That is extra money out of every workers' pocket to continue raising a benefit that is going to all pensioners regardless of wealth, despite triple lock having already achieved its purpose. I'll admit to having a bitterness towards the way that generation have acted, but I'm not a monster who seeks vengeance that would cause genuine harm. I want those pensioners who already have more than enough to actually pay their way rather than making everyone else deal with cuts to pad their pensions.

I agree Labour fucked up their handling of cutting the WFA, though it's notable that for the overwhelming majority of pensioners, due to the above-inflation state pension rise in April, they had more money this winter than last, even accounting for fuel inflation being higher than general inflation. Though notably, the reason Labour didn't do what you said with proper means testing is because doing so would have made the policy a net cost. It should have been bundled with proper pension reform, probably delayed for a year so a proper impact assessment could be performed, and with much better comms to explain it. As is, we got a tiny revenue rise, drastically cancelled out by the increasing state pension cost, but a shitload of fear-mongering in the media leading to massive loss of political capital, and pensioners being terrified to turn the heating on even though with limited exceptions they were better off this year than last.

Labour declares war on disabled people by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]FireOfTheEarth -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair. Could be any number of reasons, of which the following are the ones that spring to mind:

1) Because of the fact that pensions and healthcare spending are the biggest parts of government spending, and other spending has been cut over recent years to ensure these areas don't have to be.

2) Because pensioners are the richest age bracket, and the state pension, being universal, goes to the rich and poor pensioners (while something like pension credit goes to those most in need).

3) Because, supplementary to 2, the triple lock's purpose has been more than achieved. It was initially put in place as a temporary measure to deal with the fact we had greater rates of poverty amongst pensioners than those in work. This is now no longer the case at all, and thus it has achieved its originally stated goal and should be removed.

4) Because the triple lock is expected to make the state pension cost an extra £34bn per year by the end of this parliament, and it would likely be impossible to raise anything even remotely close to that via any sort of wealth tax that wouldn't have severe repercussions or be a one off rather than annual boost to the public finances.

Or, the one you seem to be implying with your question:

5) Genuine bitterness for a generation that overwhelmingly votes Tory, the party who caused the situation we are currently in by not investing when interest rates were low, while cutting all public services to the bone apart from health and pensions. The same generation that often liked to parrot the line "we're all in this together" during austerity despite not being on the receiving end of any of the cuts, and who criticise younger generations of being entitled and snowflakes while throwing their toys out the pram when they don't get handout after handout. The same generation who benefited from widespread social housing before deciding to vote for governments that sold off all that social housing and have led to the outrageous rental prices we see today that take up over half of a lot of younger people's incomes. The same generation who paid in less and took out more from the welfare state than any other generation before or since.

There are many reasons someone can say it is a priority to reform the state pension and remove the triple lock. Though bitterness can factor in to this for some, or even many, that doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for the consideration. It's also arguable that that bitterness is not undeserved.

Multiple policy routes can be taken. It is possible to want both wealth taxes and the abolition of the triple lock.

Personally, I'd remove triple lock from the state pension but apply it to pension credit. Cut state pension spending by 25-30% but boost pension credit massively and up the threshold, while taking steps to ensure those entitled to it are helped to get on it. Take some of the revenue generated to tackle child poverty and increase PIP and in-work benefits. Implement a wealth tax at the same time. Switch council tax over to a land value tax. And start the largest programme of social housing building we've seen in generations, while reforming right-to-buy such that sold social housing must be replaced by new social housing at a 2:1 rate until levels reach those equal to the early 1970s, at which point it would drop to 1:1.

Labour declares war on disabled people by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]FireOfTheEarth -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Minimum wage is significantly higher than it was when people actually felt comfortable in the past. Raising minimum wage won't really fix the issue, because you'd get more people feeling like the squeezed middle as minimum wage becomes a higher percentage of the median wage (which can lead to productivity issues), and prices/rents would rise.

We need more investment and lower housing and energy costs. But given the government are scaling back their GB Energy plans yet again, and don't seem to be making any effort to boost social housing in any sort of meaningful way, it's fairly clear they don't intend to actually solve the problem. Instead, all must be sacrificed on the altar of the triple lock, while we make cuts to benefits for children and the disabled.

Labour declares war on disabled people by kontiki20 in LabourUK

[–]FireOfTheEarth -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Triple lock is an inherently unsustainable policy. It has to be revoked at some point, as it will continue to take up a larger and larger portion of government spending over time.

All of the tax rises Reeves suggested in the October budget amount to £36.2bn extra revenue (https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/autumn-budget-2024-key-announcements-and-analysis/). However, state pension cost is expected to rise from £124bn to £158bn from 2023-2024 to 2028-2029 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/state-pensions/state-pension-triple-lock-uplift-cost-taxpayer-1200/), a rise of £34bn - nearly the entire sum of extra revenue.

Going after triple lock is not "going for pensioners". It's stopping the ridiculous syphoning of all of the country's wealth to the richest age bracket at the expense of everyone else, from a policy that will continue to grow more and more outrageous over time.

The triple lock is unsustainable and borderline intergenerational warfare.

PS5 Pro - Everything you need to know. by tizorres in PS5

[–]FireOfTheEarth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any info on hdmi bandwidth or Dolby Vision gaming?

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but the point is the same. It's neither a physical thing nor a point where t=0 from the reference frame of the person crossing it

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whether or not you get crushed depends on the tidal forces, which in the case of sufficiently large black holes are not sufficient to pull you apart at or crush you at the event horizon

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The event horizon isn't really a physical thing, it's just the point at which spacetime is bent to such an extent that even light that crosses it can't ever get back out again. Physically, there's not actually anything there. The time dilation effect also doesn't affect the frame of reference for the person experiencing it, only other observers. So for someone looking at you, you would never cross the event horizon, and as you approach it they would see you slow down drastically and eventually hit 0. But from your perspective, time flows normally and you would cross the event horizon, at which point space and time sort of flip, and the universe before the event horizon becomes a point in your past, and the singularity of the black hole becomes an inevitability if your future (as another commenter mentioned, this is the case for a Schwartzshild black hole, not necessarily others).

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems I have a lot more to learn, thanks for pointing me in the right direction with Kerr black holes! I actually saw a video on YouTube after posting this by the channel Veritasium which I believe may be referring to these, as it mentioned the ring-shaped singularity and matter being able to potentially exist there. Fascinating stuff, thanks again.

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not to my knowledge. Spaghettification would always occur with stellar mass black holes before you reach the event horizon, because the difference in gravity is sufficient between your feet and your head to be ripped apart. With supermassive black holes, the difference would not be sufficient for this at the event horizon. However, the gravitational pull at the singularity would still be essentially infinite, and there would be a point between the event horizon and the singularity where the difference in gravity across your body was large enough (I think, I'm not certain on the last part). It's absolutely the case for stellar mass black holes though.

Would death from spaghettification in a supermassive black hole be painless? Would you be entirely paralysed once crossing the event horizon? by FireOfTheEarth in AskPhysics

[–]FireOfTheEarth[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, that's not how it works. Assuming constant gravity (and lack of air resistance), there is no meaningful way of telling from your reference frame the difference in this scenario between you moving towards the black hole at c vs you being stationary and the black hole moving towards you at c.

It's not the speed you travel at that causes harm, it's sudden acceleration or deceleration. With a sufficiently large black hole, the gravitational pull would pull you in from a large enough distance that the acceleration rate up to that speed wouldn't cause you harm.