@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

frankPodmore

@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

London-based writer. Often climbing.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

XraySonoCol, (edited ) to uk_politics

UK Labour are too Tory for me.
I've threatened that they've lost my vote. (edit)
On LGBTQIA, specifically trans rights.
On their plans for the NHS.
On their plans for health and wealth inequalities in the UK.
On their plans for the relationship the UK has with Europe.
They have to be less Tory to get my vote back.
It's not acceptable that to not vote Tory, we have to settle for what they offer. They assume their position is acceptable.
If they correct their position, I'll reconsider
@uk_politics

frankPodmore, (edited )
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

This is a good summary of Labour’s actual policy positions, which are very different from your characterisation of them. You obviously have the right to vote for whoever you want to, for whatever reasons, but it’s better to root your behaviour in reality, not rhetoric.

frankPodmore, (edited )
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

That is definitely less important than your vote. Also, I’m unconvinced you’ve read the article in the time you’ve had since I posted it.

EDIT: Why have you replied in so many different comments? I can’t follow your argument if it’s spread out like this!

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

No, it doesn’t agree with you. Really basic reading comprehension error, there. It says people have said that, not that it is true. It spends the following 600 words demolishing that case.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Even this argument shows that the ‘why’ of voting is subsidiary to the fact of voting, which is the opposite point to the one you intend.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Your description of what you want is virtually value-free, because it’s framed entirely negatively. It sounds like you want ‘not the Tories’. The article makes the case that Labour are ‘not the Tories’, as does history and, frankly, common sense.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

UBI isn’t even necessarily a leftist policy. Apparently Richard Nixon even considered it!

frankPodmore, (edited )
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Just incredible that the Lib Dems are still trying this argument.

Apart from the reality of their platforms, Ed Davey was literally a cabinet member in a Tory government and was knighted for this service by a Tory Prime Minister.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

It’s not much of a threat if you don’t, is it?

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

The round of 16.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

But it’s the round of 16, because there are 16 teams.

frankPodmore, (edited )
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

But that is what it’s called. E.g., the FIFA World Cup 2023 brackets.

‘Round of 8’ doesn’t follow the convention, either, because that would be ‘eighth final’.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Hemi-demi-semi final?

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

But George Orwell was a leftist.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Because conservatism is more important to them than religion, essentially.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

I don’t know about philosophers per se, but I do know that the European branch of the Free Software Foundation has been campaigning for a law mandating that any software developed for a state be made FOSS so that, even if you have to use it, you can at least hypothetically see what it does with your info. That would somewhat address the issues you raise here.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

More evidence that MPs shouldn’t be on Twitter.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

This is a good comment piece and well worth engaging with whatever your politics.

Of course, given how Sunak is currently behaving, it also shows that if you’re a Conservative who’s concerned about the environment you should probably just… vote Labour.

People who back into parking spots: Why?

To me, it seems objectively easier to pull into a parking space forward and then back out of the space when you are ready to leave. You don’t have to line up with the lines while driving backwards, and it’s easier to keep from hitting other cars as well. So why back in? To me, the only advantage I can think of is that you...

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

They actually teach reverse parking as part of driving instruction here in the UK because, as many people have pointed out, it’s safer, easier and more convenient.

Does the government keep capitalist interests on the top ?

Lately since covid has begun, there has been a high job insecurity in multiple fields , while the logical thing to do would have been improving job security laws, at least our govt( the name does not matter really) has brought laws , that gives power to the capitalists to abuse labour laws , or to fire employees more easily! I...

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

There are a couple of different ways of looking at this but I think either way the answer is yes.

Firstly, capitalism as an economic system requires a government of some sort to maintain it. If we accept this (and outside of a small minority of extreme right wing libertarians and anarchocapitalists, most of us do), then there’s a fairly simple answer to your question: without a supportive government, there is no capitalism and therefore no capitalist interest. So, yes.

But I think the question you’re asking is perhaps more like, ‘Does the government make a deliberate effort to keep capitalists, i.e., shareholders, in control of the economy, as opposed to some other group?’

I think the answer to this rephrased question is slightly more complex, although it does also boil down to ‘Yes’. Businesses are required by law to prioritise shareholder returns. Insofar as the government could change the law, but doesn’t, the answer to your question again must be ‘Yes’.

But, while that law does exist, it’s not the only law. All governments do, in practice, constrain what businesses can and can’t do, and therefore do effectively restrict the theoretical profits a shareholder can make. Many governments also protect the existence and activities of groups like trade unions, which are often seen as running counter to the interests of shareholders. In this case, while I still think that basically the answer to your question is ‘Yes’, we can safely add a ‘but’, as in, ‘… but that’s not ALL that governments do’.

There’s another angle here, which is that many or even most people in the developed world are at least partially or indirectly shareholders and, therefore, capitalists. If you have a savings account or a pension, you own shares through your bank/pension provider. So, some might argue that keeping capitalists/shareholders ‘on top’ actually benefits nearly everyone. I don’t quite buy this, but it’s worth considering.

I think I could probably add further points and caveats here (e.g., tax policy might benefit ‘the rich’ who tend largely to also be ‘the capitalists/shareholders’) but I think I’ve said as much as I can without repeating myself.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Oddly, I’ve never been able to find the original Portuguese quotation, but I assume he did say farofa!

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

He hasn’t backtracked. Labour are still going to invest billions in green tech, green research and green jobs.

They’re still going to create a new state-owned green energy company.

They’re still going to phase out diesel cars.

They’re still going to change planning laws so that we can build more onshore wind, more quickly (as well as other green infrastructure, like trams and rail).

They’re still going to ban new licences for North Sea Oil extraction.

And Ulez in London is going ahead as planned without delay.

frankPodmore, (edited )
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Wind, nuclear, tidal, solar, geothermal and even biogas if deployed correctly — the combination can get us off fossil gas. I’m pro-nuclear myself, which I think is where Labour is leaning, too.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Indeed, but more research and development is needed to scale up storage to that level, and that R&D will itself take time and money.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Scar from The Lion King.

Mufasa says that the lions keep the system in balance, but the system he’s describing is an absolute monarchy based on male primogeniture, with him and his family at the top. As the main beneficiary of the system, he’s not a reliable source of information.

We see that not only the supposedly ‘bad’ hyenas but also ‘good’ characters like Timon and Pumba are outcasts forced to live off scraps, so clearly the system isn’t benefitting everyone, despite what we hear from Mufasa’s propaganda. We also know that, in fact, lions eat other animals, including the kinds shown bowing down to them at the beginning and end of the film. We never hear from these animals, but logic suggests that they’re bowing as much out of fear as fealty.

Now, granted, Scar’s revolution doesn’t work out too well, given the famine that ensues, but he was at least trying for a more equitable distribution of resources than under Mufasa’s tyrannical reign.

frankPodmore,
@frankPodmore@slrpnk.net avatar

Nobody’s perfect.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • provamag3
  • ethstaker
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • tester
  • Leos
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • everett
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •