DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

meant more to highlight the real england thread as another example of the fraught nature of trying to imagine the country as a whole, but more exoticising rather than purely grim

gotcha - yep, agreed.

the real england thread was about two somewhat related things, the implausibility of any sort national authenticity claims, the lack of conviction in feeble metonymies like john major's warm beer & village greens -- and the notion that there might just be some sort of occulted yet irreducible englishness after all

then everyone noticed how intrinsically enjoyable it is to declaim invented realnesses, the heavy and reassuring cathexis of things held to be important beyond their means

the survey of political stupidities (which was also discussed itt) is also about authenticity claims as much as empiricism, because people who are not acquainted with statisical estimation are generally not very good at it, so don't bother......probably most people would (if counselled patiently) realize that it is not realistic that a quarter of the welfare budget is disbursed to fradulent claimants

except that is not what is happening....probably a plurality of people come up with some vaguely reasonable figure (<5%ish) and a lot of other people say that MOST of them are fradulent, not because this is inherently plausible but because the archetype of the un/deserving poor is so deeply entrenched in national ideas about labour and desert

similarly the idea that 15% of underage girls have babies cannot possibly reconcile with lived reality.....except the significant amount of people who said 15%, 20%, 30% whatever, aren't really pausing to consider their own memory of being 15 years old, they are expressing their ideological belief (that teenage girls are essentially feckless slatterns) via fictive means

they are expressing their ideological belief (that teenage girls are essentially feckless slatterns) via fictive means

Teenage girls from poor families are feckless slatterns is closer to it

we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales

This is the one that leapt out at me, that is just insane. Having said that, I'm probably guilty of overestimating the numbers of mean-spirited morons in the UK... probably.

resounding post nilmar

Department of Bullshit Statistics...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23306092

The government claims that over 12,000 people have moved into work after being told about the benefits cap.

IDS has form with this kind of thing, of course. Wouldn't be surprised if the ONS is already taking a look at this latest claim.

So over 25% of people potentially affected by the cap moved into work paying more than £500 a week after tax?

let me know where them jobs are, i fancy the wage rise

The government claims that over 12,000 people have moved into work after being told about the benefits cap. They all said "Core blimey, I'm off!"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-ex-prostitute-issues-sue-153565#.UeVCK620NkA.twitter

I'm too chicken to click on that link.

Every single one of the "editor's picks" on that BBC IDS benefit cap article - the 10 comments out of 1460 that they display by default - are pro-cap. "Something for nothing society", "Those in receipt of benefit should be required to work", "supposed to be a safety net not a lifestyle choice!"

Oh, my mistake, there's one that isn't. It's 90%. Yeah, I know, Don't Read The Comments, and maybe the editor's picks are just automated from the number of "likes" each comment gets, but... I think we're going to get another five years of these bastards. A lot of these policies are patently insane, insulting, counterproductive and vicious from within my little leftie bubble, but are playing awfully well at large.

i read a comment once that included the line "I paid taxes for the right to walk on the pavement" (i think this was about that EDL arrest thing) which was kind of lol but mostly sad. reminded me of a time in school when I claimed to be Jesus and this kid came up with the rather witty remark "no ken, Jesus was English", to confounding faces.

I think I replied to the tax comment: "dude I think you may be paying too much tax" but got no replies.

You should have said it to that kid, too.

Just how long long did you keep up this claim of being Jesus?

hes not jesus, but he has nearly the same initials

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ol0sxufg1rpfehzo1_400.jpg

is this hogwash or ACTUAL DOOM?

http://pro.moneyweek.com/myk-eob-tpr123/PMYKP703/

on further watching it seems like nasty anti-welfare propaganda, done in an unnerving adam curtis style

when all the cities started lighting up on that map, there was a dot over Spurn Head, population 6-ish

xxp Total fucking hogwash. The cost of welfare and benefits is a tiny fraction of the UK's economic debt. This is just a scaremongering advert for some bullshit magazine subscription.
Debunking here:
http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-end-of-britain-not-yet.html

that blog is good; just fell down a 'guaranteed basic income' wormhole thanks to it

thanks snoball

Just as well that baby is on its way or people might have to notice this ridiculous "porn-blocking" policy.

Another attempt to appease Daily Mail readers.

Cameron wrote to the search providers asking them to pretend that it was an opt-out block, rather than an opt-in one, right?

Is this the same man who appeared on Woman's Hour this morning and said he didn't see a problem with Page 3?

Wait what

xxp Total fucking hogwash. The cost of welfare and benefits is a tiny fraction of the UK's economic debt. This is just a scaremongering advert for some bullshit magazine subscription.
Debunking here:
http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-end-of-britain-not-yet.html

Thankyou for this btw, very good blog post

The Sun and the Mail Online stand to make an absolute bomb out of an opt-in porn policy, I would imagine. Except it won't work.

Considering the proposals will everyone with a copy of 'Irreversible' have their collars felt?

Good smokescreen for Lynton Crosby all this, eh?

Not that I care that much about Lynton Crosby or even think there's much of a story there but Cameron's squirming over it is hilarious if somewhat inexplicable

How would this thing even work? Would ISPs simply block known porn sites or would they check content for keywords or what? Cos if it's the latter then I've seen it suggested that it could prevent teenagers from accessing LGBT sites etc

It's just a cover to distract attention away from other shit. Pretty soon in the DAILY MAIL OMG ROYAL BABY SOUVENIR EDITION there'll be a bit in the bottom corner of page 13 where some government spokesperson says "Oh that porn filter thing? It'll be opt in instead, using software ISPs already provide."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

chill guys, objectification doesn't deprave and corrupt unless it's got cocks in it

How would this thing even work?

It won't, essentially.

Well, Rupert Murdoch doesn't own any pr0n websites.

if the ban were to be introduced does anybody know where i'd be able to obtain bikini shots of barely legal teens?

People interested in such photos could still buy the Daily Mail in a newsagent.

thanks, that's good to know

Basically if this becomes law, anyone you see on a bus reading the Daily Mail is probably a ped0.

i tend to make that assumption anyway, since most Daily Mail readers wouldn't be caught dead on a bus

What's the Daily Express's line on all this?

PENSIONERS TO COOK THEN DROWN IN ARCTIC HEATWAVE THUNDERFLOOD NIGHTMARE

will there be a sting operation to review what the PM's google search terms contained in the past?

or will any findings be classified as "for research purposes" #townsend

xxxp Dirty Desmond must be rubbing his hands with glee given the boost it will provide for his p0rn channels, I should think