Scrutable

But that's exactly what I don't understand. It's a great source of narcissistic supply. Spend a bit of govt money, get love and attention back.

Just imagine Trump at a rally. He points to an adoring redneck fan. Did my tax cuts make you richer? Yes! He asks the audience, did I make you richer? Yes!! Do you thank me? Yes!!! A chant spontaneously breaks out: Thank You Trump! Thank You Trump!

The love of an adoring nation is what these people seek. A generation growing up with nostalgic memories of Boris Breakfasts. And yet these incompetent populists throw away easy opportunities.

Maybe they are too short sighted narcissists?

The true popularist greats like Caesar are long sighted, looking beyond the immediate room for narcissistic supply, but the failed popularists crave only the adulation of the person standing next to them?

Boris needs praise from Cummings and the Number 10 inner circle, and when they supply the admiration he fails to see it costs him the vaster supply available from the masses. Trump loves getting adored by a millionaire he meets personally at his golf club, so gives the tax cut to him instead of the proles?

There was indeed an easy win available to them, I agree, but I think the lack of empathy meant they didn't realise it. Tax breaks to billionaires is appealing to the self-interest of the person they're courting favour from, something a narcissist can totally understand.

But Johnson genuinely didn't seem to realise that most people don't like the idea of starving kids, even if those kids are not their own.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:51 am

McDonalds to offer 1000000 free meals to “families in need”.
https://twitter.com/mcdonaldsuk/status/ ... 94593?s=21

I wouldn’t rule out a business reasoning but still, it’s striking how the fast food giant gets the messaging better than the government.

McDonalds has long had collection boxes for their own children's charities, and efforts to promote them - I remember them from the 80s. So it's a long term business plan, not just a quick turnaround PR stunt.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:44 pm

Vertigowooyay wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:54 am

JellyandJackson wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:47 am

In terms of the what to do, we’re in a position to be able to get some extra bits at each shop which I drop off at the local food bank donation point every few weeks. I am going to email my MP, for all the bl..dy good it’ll do, given she posted this. https://twitter.com/vickyford/status/12 ... 29?lang=en

Did anybody see Brendan Clarke-Smith’s little snippet on the news yesterday? Talking about nationalising children, and accusing Rashford of virtue signalling. Honestly. What planet is he on?

I would urge anyone, when they see someone using the term 'virtue signalling' on any kind of social media, to issue a brief reminder that 'virtue signalling' is what terrible people call human decency, so they can pretend it's not them who has the problem when they look in the mirror.

It's annoying that the term is abused so liberally, because it would be nice to have a term for people trying to appear virtuous without actually being so - eg corporations with relatively poor attitudes to their own minority ethnic workers posting white text on black image files showing their supposed support of black lives matter - but what Rashford is doing here is straightforwardly being virtuous. Likewise, doing the right thing when people can see is better described as setting a good example. I wish we could have a term for the hollow version without it being dominated by a..eholes who hate compassion, but that's where we are at.

The word "hypocrite" originally meant someone who pretends to be better than they are (from the Greek hupokrités, an actor). It would suit the bill here if we hadn't slipped into using it to mean someone who fails to practice what they preach, or who holds inconsistent opinions.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 11:20 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:51 am

McDonalds to offer 1000000 free meals to “families in need”.
https://twitter.com/mcdonaldsuk/status/ ... 94593?s=21

I wouldn’t rule out a business reasoning but still, it’s striking how the fast food giant gets the messaging better than the government.

McDonalds has long had collection boxes for their own children's charities, and efforts to promote them - I remember them from the 80s. So it's a long term business plan, not just a quick turnaround PR stunt.

They also provide accommodation near children's hospitals so that parents can stay if their kids are undergoing long-term treatment. I'm sure it's all for tax breaks but at least it's helping people.

twitter's prediction:

My money's on the conclusion to the free school meals issue being the government throwing £35billion at a private sector company with links to the Jockey Club to provide holiday meals, who feed five children, once, in total. The scheme is proclaimed a roaring success.

lpm wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:26 am

But that's exactly what I don't understand. It's a great source of narcissistic supply. Spend a bit of govt money, get love and attention back.

That's not how it works as far as the populist right is concerned: it would look like "we're giving your hard-earned tax money to people who don't deserve it". Because poor people are either lazy or stupid or whatever, anyway it's their own fault, not like you, you deserve tax breaks, they don't deserve hand outs.

The left, and indeed anyone who is actually a human being, should realize that this isn't just heartless and inhumane, but also a totally false economy, especially in these times. It's much more efficient to pay certain workers to just stay at home; the left would have given money directly to restaurants so that they could have afforded to stay closed instead of subsidizing people who could already afford to go and eat in them once a week and therefore cause new infections among the staff.

One of Mussolini's first actions was to provide for orphans. He knew velvet gloves are pretty easy and cheap, obscuring the reality of iron fists.

Helping children in 2020 then screwing their parents in 2021 is a great strategy. "We're kind and humane and we're not giving your hard-earned tax money to the undeserving" is the best populist approach.

If I was a right-wing scum Tory I'd be worrying that this actually meant we'll have to be more generous with benefits for dole scroungers in the future, because we have to claw back ground. Saved a million now, cost ourselves a billion later.

We can't give them free food, cos they'll only trade it for heroin.

jdc wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:29 pm

We can't give them free food, cos they'll only trade it for heroin.

I'm pretty sure he said crack, jdc, stop taking things out of context.

Not content to not feed hungry kids, they're now backtracking on giving them the resources they need to study.

Headteachers across England received emails from the Department for Education on the eve of half-term informing them that their allocations of laptops for disadvantaged pupils had been slashed by around 80%.

The blow comes just two days after the government used its Covid-19 emergency powers to impose a new legal duty on schools to provide a remote education to any pupil unable to attend lessons because of the pandemic.
...
“We are now in a position where we have to offer remote learning within 24 hours of young people being sent home. We are actually breaking the law if we don’t,” said [one headteacher who has 300 students without access to a device they can use at home].

discovolante wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:41 pm

jdc wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:29 pm

We can't give them free food, cos they'll only trade it for heroin.

I'm pretty sure he said crack, jdc, stop taking things out of context.

Come one people, free school meals subsidize crack dens and brothels.
https://twitter.com/angelarayner/status ... 76994?s=21

Cruel

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health are joining the attack against the government.

With a growing number of councils and businesses this weekend offering to provide free meals, more than 2,000 paediatricians across the UK have signed a letter expressing their shock at the decision. They state that ensuring children have enough to eat is one of the “most basic human responsibilities”... Russell Viner, president of the Royal College, told the Observer that he had “rarely seen such anger among our members”.

What's quite er...not actually astounding about all these Tory MPs getting their knickers in a twist over being criticised is that they seem to think that none the people angry with them a) have any idea how the system works and/or b) have ever had any personal experience of claiming benefits.

The worst Just as annoying is that they are claiming that they are being subjected to abuse purely because they were described as 'scum' in the House.

Fishnut wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2020 11:36 am

They also provide accommodation near children's hospitals so that parents can stay if their kids are undergoing long-term treatment. I'm sure it's all for tax breaks but at least it's helping people.

I have a friend who relied on Ronald McDonald House when their child was in hospital for months. They credit it with being able to keep the family together. Whatever feelings I had for the charity before then are gone - they're a fantastic resource.

Still don't eat McDonalds, but periodically nip in to put some cash in the collection box

CF

https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1320319452496465921 A nationwide Tory-shaming campaign could be fun

One of my Cornish relatives posted a comment regarding their MP voting against the motion. It seems from the large number of replies that a) this MP has a farm with shop and café down there and b) by the looks of things it won't be getting much trade for a very long time in the future.

If only they had a superpredictor in Downing Street who could foresee that voting not to feed hungry kids would play badly with the voters

Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:12 pm

I have a friend who relied on Ronald McDonald House when their child was in hospital for months. They credit it with being able to keep the family together. Whatever feelings I had for the charity before then are gone - they're a fantastic resource.

When #1 son was in hospital in Strasbourg, there were people from 300km away staying in the Ronald McDonald house on the campus. Whoever at McDonald's came up with the idea for this as their house charity was a goddam genius. They do tremendous good and its not an obvious cause to think of.

In France, at least, it's not free --- you pay 10 Euros per night as a symbolic contribution, and there's a security deposit of 80-100 Euros. I'm a big fan of things being very cheap rather than free; people tend to respect totally free stuff less.

Labour are now saying they'll force it to a vote again if Downing Street don't back down.

Boris Johnson failed to reply to 'personal' letter sent by Marcus Rashford asking for help feeding hungry children
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnso ... n-12113225

Kinda looks like they don't know what to do.

If they u-turn on this they will claim credit for 'listening' and expect to be congratulated for it. I don't really have anything against u-turns if they do seem to be a genuine response to evidence but if they try to make out like they were the good guys all along then I really hope nobody forgets what actually happened.