Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Sorry for being late to the party, I don't pop round all that often.

    But the PAA is certainly not a "deus ex machina". It was a piece of legislation that was entirely reasonable and possible and practical and also extremely effective. It is true that it was vague but that was because no one here could be bothered (or thought it necessary) to compile a complete list of all goods and services that people would need to have to live a decent life. Instead we relied on the list compiled by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and their prices. That's hardly unreasonable or miraculous.

    And whenever someone said "I think the government should pay for X" it was an entirely reasonable response to say that "if X was something needed then it is included in the list of good needed and hence under the PAA". If being unable to write Bill after Bill adding more and more things for the government to pay for individually killed the HoC isn't that a sad indictment of the state of the HoC?

    Also, while its nice to be given credit for single-handedly ruining everyone's fun let's not forget that it needed a majority to vote for the PAA to make it law.
    Without getting into an argument with you, I think the major problem was that everytime anyone even came near an area of welfare (broadly defined) you ended up with a cocky Libertarian* coming along and saying "oh but we don't need this because the PAA covers it". Which isn't quite the same as making for debate on the substantive elements of the bill - the sustenance of the MHoC. This was the major problem and since most aspects of an individual's life at the age of 18, 19, or 20 have been defined by the welfare state be they hospitals, education, or quite a lot of people's breadwinning income for that matter, it's not entirely surprising that they would think more about aspects of the welfare state than almost anything else.

    The way the House is defined makes talking about international politics generally meaningless and even my attempt to beat people into thinking about the constitutional arrangements of the UK failed to excite a largely English House into thinking about how the UK is governed on that level. And so, again, we come back to the questions of welfare. You know all of this which is why as your last active participation in the place was the PAA. Kill welfare discussion and you kill the game. The fact that a majority of people here followed you shows that the Pied Piper of Tower Hamlets plays a good tune for the gullible.

    *Cocky might be the wrong word here. I mean one who is certain of what the bill does but seems unwilling to compromise on misunderstandings from other people. My usage here probably derives from my natural emnity towards the market libertarians that predominate in (or are exclusive to) the TSR Libertarian Party.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Without getting into an argument with you, I think the major problem was that everytime anyone even came near an area of welfare (broadly defined) you ended up with a cocky Libertarian coming along and saying "oh but we don't need this because the PAA covers it". Which isn't quite the same as making for debate on the substantive elements of the bill - the sustenance of the MHoC. This was the major problem and since most aspects of an individual's life at the age of 18, 19, or 20 have been defined by the welfare state be they hospitals, education, or quite a lot of people's breadwinning income for that matter, it's not entirely surprising that they would think more about aspects of the welfare state than almost anything else.

    The way the House is defined makes talking about international politics generally meaningless and even my attempt to beat people into thinking about the constitutional arrangements of the UK failed to excite a largely English House into thinking about how the UK is governed on that level. And so, again, we come back to the questions of welfare. You know all of this which is why as your last active participation in the place was the PAA. Kill welfare discussion and you kill the game. The fact that a majority of people here followed you shows that the Pied Piper of Tower Hamlets plays a good tune for the gullible.
    Nothing was stopping you or anyone else proposing an amendment to the PAA to specify the list of goods and services that it included. The reality is not that the PAA was too vague but that it was too powerful. I can completely see that it killed welfare discussion but only because a majority of the House agreed that it did so. It wasn't repealed and wasn't amended and welfare discussions didn't go ahead because, I suppose, it was clear that the PAA had effectively concluded the welfare discussion. And it did so not as a "deus ex machina" as you claimed earlier because its provisions and funding were clearly laid out. Had it been as you claimed then I could not point (as I have done in an earlier post here) to a complete and extensive list of goods and services that would make up the basket of goods whose price is the minimum income.

    So yes, the PAA was a powerful Act that reframed welfare and made discussions about whether to fund school dinners somewhat redundant (not totally though). But that isn't killing the game? Even if we suppose that welfare is the only real talking point then the game is not dead, it is won. Just as in chess you wouldn't complain that a checkmate has killed the game so why complain about the PAA in those terms? If we as a group have managed to come up with a method of providing welfare that we all (or mostly) agree is desirable then we should congratulate ourselves on winning the game.

    Sure, we can start again, but since the rules and moves are the same we already know how this ought to end - we should end with the PAA because it does what we all seek to do - win the game.

    But let me put your mind at ease - I most certainly did not intend to prevent everyone having fun with the PAA. My intention was only to propose a piece of legislation that would change the way welfare is funded and provided into a way that was fairer, cheaper to administer, easier to understand, easier to claim, easier to change, easier to manage and which offered more choice to citizens and improved their lives. I think the PAA did that, a majority of the House agreed. I really don't know where you got it from that the PAA was somehow malicious.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Sure, we can start again, but since the rules and moves are the same we already know how this ought to end - we should end with the PAA because it does what we all seek to do - win the game.
    Actually, to be honest, winning the game is not really of interest to me. I much prefer the discussion with people over how particular ideas can be fleshed out into legislation that then impacts on broader society. I suspect, deep down, this is the motivation for a lot of people here. Thus, your "check-mate" has not only won the game that only you play but also killed the discussion that a lot of us engage in.

    But let me put your mind at ease - I most certainly did not intend to prevent everyone having fun with the PAA. My intention was only to propose a piece of legislation that would change the way welfare is funded and provided into a way that was fairer, cheaper to administer, easier to understand, easier to claim, easier to change, easier to manage and which offered more choice to citizens and improved their lives. I think the PAA did that, a majority of the House agreed. I really don't know where you got it from that the PAA was somehow malicious.
    It wouldn't pass now. In fact a lot of the Tories who voted for it, would probably now vote against it.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    1000 line government whip against = fail
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    You got a fast car
    But is it fast enough so we can fly away
    We gotta make a decision
    We leave tonight or live and die this way....

    :moon:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah sure I have that many whips.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm joining!!

    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I want a unicorn.
    Try cross breeding a horse and a rhino. Or a horse a rhino and something else.
    Ah you'll work it out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Actually, to be honest, winning the game is not really of interest to me. I much prefer the discussion with people over how particular ideas can be fleshed out into legislation that then impacts on broader society. I suspect, deep down, this is the motivation for a lot of people here. Thus, your "check-mate" has not only won the game that only you play but also killed the discussion that a lot of us engage in.



    It wouldn't pass now. In fact a lot of the Tories who voted for it, would probably now vote against it.
    Possibly one of the few times I have repped the boring welsh git but I guess I have to :cool:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Actually, to be honest, winning the game is not really of interest to me. I much prefer the discussion with people over how particular ideas can be fleshed out into legislation that then impacts on broader society. I suspect, deep down, this is the motivation for a lot of people here. Thus, your "check-mate" has not only won the game that only you play but also killed the discussion that a lot of us engage in.

    It wouldn't pass now. In fact a lot of the Tories who voted for it, would probably now vote against it.
    I still find the notion that the mere existence of the PAA could stop everyone's fun. Why not just repeal it (rather than everything) or continue to discuss your new Bill and ignore any reference to the PAA.

    Whatever. I think the PAA was a good Act regardless of its impact on the game. I also think that complaints about its vagueness are largely bogus (as I have shown above). But I also completely reject your assertion that it was a deliberate ploy to ruin the game. I don't know why you think I would want to do that nor what makes you think that that is what it was. I simply thought it was a good idea, I still do. That's all.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I'm joining!!



    Try cross breeding a horse and a rhino. Or a horse a rhino and something else.
    Ah you'll work it out.
    I want one that can speak and backflip
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I still find the notion that the mere existence of the PAA could stop everyone's fun. Why not just repeal it (rather than everything) or continue to discuss your new Bill and ignore any reference to the PAA.

    Whatever. I think the PAA was a good Act regardless of its impact on the game. I also think that complaints about its vagueness are largely bogus (as I have shown above). But I also completely reject your assertion that it was a deliberate ploy to ruin the game. I don't know why you think I would want to do that nor what makes you think that that is what it was. I simply thought it was a good idea, I still do. That's all.
    Adorno is right - it does entirely ruin the game. For example, I would absolutely love to put forward legislation that seems the mass devolution of power; however, it will only achieve one thing - to end this House hence why I won't support it on TSR. It ruins it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Just read an article in the New Statesman basically saying that Miliband can kiss goodbye a renaissance if the SNP push Labour further out as is expected at the next Holyrood election. What with that and the AV referendum likely to fail, do the left have legitimate worries?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I still find the notion that the mere existence of the PAA could stop everyone's fun. Why not just repeal it (rather than everything) or continue to discuss your new Bill and ignore any reference to the PAA.
    Because even the repeal of the PAA is covered by the PAA. That's the thing. Dodgy toe - covered by the PAA. Missing fruit pastille - covered by the PAA. Going grey - covered by the PAA. This is how bad it got from the Libertarians... And since they were the puppet masters of the last government, it was hard for the Left, who wanted rid, to act. So the House reset itself.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Just read an article in the New Statesman basically saying that Miliband can kiss goodbye a renaissance if the SNP push Labour further out as is expected at the next Holyrood election. What with that and the AV referendum likely to fail, do the left have legitimate worries?
    The left certainly do have legitimate worries. Their counter-narrative to the government's cuts is fragmented and (pretty much) indefensible. All they can do is stand on the sidelines and moan whilst most British people accept the need for cuts. They need to regain the middle-class votes they lost through Gordon Brown and they're not going to do that by appealing to trade unionists and activists. Frankly I feel a bit sorry for them because the only way they can win an election is by abandoning their values but that's politics for you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Just read an article in the New Statesman basically saying that Miliband can kiss goodbye a renaissance if the SNP push Labour further out as is expected at the next Holyrood election. What with that and the AV referendum likely to fail, do the left have legitimate worries?
    Naw. Labour will still win in Wales and I suspect we'll have either a Labour majority or a Lib-Lab coalition demonstrating that progressive politics isn't yet dead. The case in Scotland is different. You have a populist party with a presidential figure fighting against a Party that has defined the political focus of Scotland on the centre-left but as yet lacks a replacement for Donald Dewar. Had Dewar not died, Scotland would be Labour yet. It's not a time to worry. Indeed, if the Greens get a seat in the Senedd and Labour take back many of the English cities on Thursday, it might be a day to celebrate.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Adorno is right - it does entirely ruin the game. For example, I would absolutely love to put forward legislation that seems the mass devolution of power; however, it will only achieve one thing - to end this House hence why I won't support it on TSR. It ruins it.
    What happens, then, if you were able to pass all the legislation that you thought was necessary? Would you not do so for fear that the game would end? This isn't really a MMORPG where new content can be continually invented. Surely you recognise that at some point (even if it is only theoretical) the game must end?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Because even the repeal of the PAA is covered by the PAA. That's the thing. Dodgy toe - covered by the PAA. Missing fruit pastille - covered by the PAA. Going grey - covered by the PAA. This is how bad it got from the Libertarians... And since they were the puppet masters of the last government, it was hard for the Left, who wanted rid, to act. So the House reset itself.
    Huh. Well I can hardly be blamed if people used the PAA to cover things it couldn't cover, nor if they were allowed to do so. Sure you might not have been able to get your Bills passed for a while but you could have had the debate about it.

    Anyway, I'm not going to apologise for the PAA
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Huh. Well I can hardly be blamed if people used the PAA to cover things it couldn't cover, nor if they were allowed to do so. Sure you might not have been able to get your Bills passed for a while but you could have had the debate about it.
    The fact you say this over and over suggests you're not listening. The PAA killed the debate, this was its problem. And mine is no longer a lone voice. If even Teaddict, who agrees with me on nothing politically, is now shouting the same thing then I'm afraid the opinion of the House has turned away from your position. PAA - whether intended or not - killed the HoC.

    Anyway, I'm not going to apologise for the PAA
    Then why tear open the stitches and make a song and dance of a dead argument? I don't understand why you do this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    What happens, then, if you were able to pass all the legislation that you thought was necessary? Would you not do so for fear that the game would end? This isn't really a MMORPG where new content can be continually invented. Surely you recognise that at some point (even if it is only theoretical) the game must end?
    That's the beauty of it - everything that I want won't be passed. That's the point!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    The left certainly do have legitimate worries. Their counter-narrative to the government's cuts is fragmented and (pretty much) indefensible. All they can do is stand on the sidelines and moan whilst most British people accept the need for cuts. They need to regain the middle-class votes they lost through Gordon Brown and they're not going to do that by appealing to trade unionists and activists. Frankly I feel a bit sorry for them because the only way they can win an election is by abandoning their values but that's politics for you.
    That's a very Anglo-Centric perspective. In Wales, for example (sorry!), Labour have announced that spending on the NHS here will stay the same over the life of the next assembly in order that education and local government might not be so severely hit. Then, in PMQs on Weds last, Cameron was berating Labour for cutting the NHS in Wales. So what is it to be? Are Labour to show that they have a different narrative: of more rounded cuts in which even the NHS loses something in order that burdens are shared more equally; or are Labour to be constantly told they have no alternative? I don't quite get the Right's point on this. Labour, where it is in government on a national level, has shown clearly that it has a way of dealing with budget cuts more fairly.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,032

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.