Interesting Links for 06-12-2023

[andrewducker]

1. The geek fallacy of lotteries

(tags:lottery )

2. Large cities make segregation easier, unless urban planning tries to prevent it

(tags:class inequality cities design viaSwampers )

3. Ed Balls and George Osborne talk about how they colluded on tuition fees and poverty

(tags:labour conservatives austerity tuition fees OhForFucksSake )

4. Labour in favour of breaking up families, so long as they've got foreigners in them

(tags:labour family migration OhForFucksSake )

Comments

No 1.

[channelpenguin]

this entry seem to be friends only

Re: No 1.

[andrewducker]

Bugger! Sorry about that.

[bens_dad]

1 is friends-locked.
Pity, it sounds interesting.

[andrewducker]

The basic gist is that putting a pound on a lottery takes many people on low incomes from "0% chance of ever owning a house" to "0.0000001% chance of ever owning a house".

[channelpenguin]

It's entertainment - if you have the right mindset to enjoy the possibility of something unlikely.* Fantasy of many sorts gets many people through life. Most people are not problem gamblers, so I don't see a small outlay for a bit of escapist enjoyment as any big deal.

* I very definitely do NOT.

[andrewducker]

Oh yes. That's why I do it too.

[cmcmck]

4. Great- not!

My nephew is about to marry an Uzbek girl and they have a kid on the way so this could become very personal very soon!

[andrewducker]

They are just so fucking awful.

[channelpenguin]

It was already awful and ludicrously expensive 10 years ago when a friend married an American (she's theatre tech). It's dreadful if they are making it even worse.

4

[danieldwilliam]

I would interpret this less as Labour will keep this policy and more as Labour will say they will keep this policy in the run up to the election in the expectation that most left-leaning socially liberal voters will still vote for them and then, about 18 months after winning the election after they have "carefully reviewed the current state of X" quietly change the policy in a way that no-one notices.

That is my general assumption on any policy where the Tories have announced that they will be beastly to some group and Labour say "sure, sounds good, but we think you're being beastly in an incompete way."

For this specific policy by changing the scope of occupations considered in demand and allowing fiscal drag in a time of moderate wage inflation to reduce the number of people impacted along with a number of hardship provisions

Re: 4

[andrewducker]

It would be *lovely* if I could assume that Labour are pretending to be unpleasant just to scoop up a few extra voters.

Alas, I remember Jack Straw.

Re: 4

[rhythmaning]

Also, it's basically taking the piss out of left-leaning voters: taking for granted they'll get your votes, so it doesn't matter what they say or do.

I think it could backfire big time, especially in Scotland.

This could be a good thing, though, in the long run.

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

Agreed.

Generally I would exclude Scotland from my assumption that left-leaning socially liberal voters are trapped by FPTP in to mostly having to vote for the Labour Party. Scotland this electoral cycle seems to have become fed up of the SNP and I'm not sure the Scottish Greens or the Lib Dems are quite in a position to pick up those voters - perhaps the Lib Dems in the Highlands and Islands?

Re: 4

[rhythmaning]

tbh I was thinking that Labour's behaviour would push people back to towards the SNP! We'll have to wait to see how it pans out!

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

That's also possibl.

I try to remember that there was *some* overlap between SNP voters and Brexit voters and quite a lot of SNP voters voted for Kate Forbes.

Re: 4

[andrewducker]

Yup, there's definitely a balancing act there.

Re: 4

[bens_dad]

I find it difficult to believe that Labour really can afford to show that they don't want other leftish votes.

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

In most constituencies who else are they going to vote for that will not result in a Tory MP being elected?

Re: 4

[andrewducker]

In that kind of situation I'd be thinking very carefully:
1) This is because of the voting system. Are Labour promising to reform this?
2) If not, then should I take the long-term view that voting for someone who will reform the voting system, and therefore making it more likely that they gain popularity over the next few elections until they can do so would be better?
3) Particularly if Labour are forecast a landslide, and so they can afford to lose some votes for long term gain.
4) But on the other hand, returning *these* Conservatives would be so very very bad.

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

It's tricky for sure.

Re: 4

[bens_dad]

I suppose my recent experience isn't much like most constituencies.
In 2017 I had the choice of the sitting Labour MP, or the previous, LibDem, MP. The Conservatives were in no danger of getting in; I could afford to vote for the candidate I really wanted, rather than using my vote to restrict damage.
After that I moved to a constituency with a LibDem MP where the Tories were the only plausible challengers.

If I were in a constituency where Labour had a *small* chance of toppling a Tory and no-one else did, Labour have so many rightish policies that I might be better off showing that they are on the wrong track, by voting for who I want.
If Labour really are on for a landslide, I want to change that to a minority government so that they will do something about FPTP.

If they actually consider this, I doubt they would want a majority in Parliament on a minority vote, which would mean they can get bills through but would would be open to people reminding them that most people voted against them.

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

I think the Labour Party would take a majority in Parliament on a minority vote and consider it to be entirely normal and the British thing to do.

Re: 4

[andrewducker]

Yup. It's how the system works.

Re: 4

[danieldwilliam]

My mother spoke of him fondly.