From the Independent.

Conservative plans to enshrine an EU referendum in law have collapsed amid a bitter Coalition row.

The European Union (Referendum) Bill, which aimed at creating a legally binding obligation that the next government hold a vote on Britain's EU membership by 2017, cleared its first hurdle in Parliament earlier this month and was due to return to the Commons later in the current Parliamentary session.

But the Bill has now collapsed, with Conservatives accusing the Lib Dems of deliberately wrecking the legislation by demanding backing for reform of the so-called bedroom tax as their price for support.

Bob Neill, the backbench Tory MP who proposed the legislation, accused the Lib Dems of 'killing off' his Bill, saying: “They didn't have the guts to vote against an EU referendum in the House of Commons.

“Instead they have used Westminster tricks to try to deny the British people a say on their membership of the EU.”

He added: “This is will now be a major issue at the General Election. Two parties - Labour and Lib Dems - have done everything they can to stop a referendum.”

“Ukip aren't able to offer a referendum, and a vote for them makes the prospect of a Labour government led by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, who don't want a referendum, more likely.

Bob Neill, Conservative backbencher Bob Neill, Conservative backbencher (Getty) “Only David Cameron and the Conservatives are offering a renegotiation followed by an in-out referendum by 2017.”

The Lib Dems, however, hit back with counter-claims that the Conservatives had deliberately sacrificed the Bill, and were now trying to make scapegoats of their junior Coalition partners.

A Lib Dem source said: “We can only assume they would prefer it hadn't become law by the time of the general election. They would prefer to try and deal with Ukip by saying the only way to get a referendum is to vote Tory. They couldn't do that if their Bill had become law.”

Lib Dem deputy leader Malcolm Bruce also accused the Conservatives of sacrificing the Bill to gain an electoral advantage over Ukip.

He said: “They clearly never wanted the referendum Bill to pass. The Liberal Democrats were never going to block their referendum Bill.

“We were happy to allow them to try and get it passed in the House of Commons. But the truth is they have folded like a cheap deck chair and are trying to make us take the blame by adding ridiculous conditions they knew we would not and could not accept.

“It is amazing that the Tories are prepared to sacrifice a bill they say they care about, for some short-term tactical distinction from Ukip.”

Talks have been held “at all levels” over recent days but came to a head on Tuesday.

Lib Dems wanted backing for a money resolution - a means of agreeing spending that is needed for Private Member's Bills to progress - in support of Andrew George's bid to reform the so-called bedroom tax.

Conservatives wanted backing for the same measure for Mr Neill's referendum Bill, and also the promise of Government time - a requirement Lib Dems said was inequitable.

A senior Liberal Democrat source said: “The Tories put forward a proposal they know for certain will be turned down by the Lib Dems - a completely unfair deal.

“They know we are not about to sign up to their Bill being given Government time when it is neither the Liberal Democrats position, nor the Coalition Government's, especially when they are not prepared to offer anything in return. The Coalition Government is a two-way street.

“The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the Tories don't really want their Bill to pass and are trying to set the Lib Dems up as the scapegoats. Why else would they put forward a proposal they know cannot be agreed?”

China is Communist

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Easily the best thread of this forum so far.

Meta, would you still disagree with Kinder if you made the distinction between political communism and theoretical communism?

It's an inconsequential distinction to make. Political communism, at least when it comes to China, can only stretch insofar as China's government is nominally communist.

I don't care what the Chinese government claims to be aiming for, I care about what they do, and why wouldn't anyone else? Communism is an entire socioeconomic system, you can't force the distinction when, by not aspiring to the "theoretical" version, you aren't communist in any meaningful way.

You have the elimination of differing political parties with the establishment of a single party to which everybody is part of, thus eliminating the concept of class war.

Considering it actually established a new political class, and hasn't established a vanguard state, you'd be hard-pressed to find a communist who agreed with that.

In 2007, the Property Law of the People's Republic of China was passed which essentially created three differing forms of property:  state, collective, and private. State is pretty simple as it's the pubic/government control and because essentially all people belong to the Communist Party and the C.P controls the government, therefore all people have access to this land. Collective is the concept of people working the land together under the guidance of the government, thus making it public land. Private is a tad different as it grants some private property. HOWEVER, this law does not overrule the system of land tenure where the government still has control over all land (remember, the government=people, making it all public)

Well, no. The government doesn't equal the people, and the very existence of private property goes, quite clearly, against any formulation of communism. Again, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that China doesn't even claim to be communist instead calling itself market socialist and having done so since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping.

"Each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs" is simple as 1+1=2; China is a manufacturing and agricultural society so people are essentially split between those two fields of work and paid

And this is where the Oxford Dictionary is wrong. While it can get quite confusing, since Marx never explicitly referred to "socialism" - instead naming it, I think, lower communism - but communism proper has no wages by virtue of having no money.

However, the reason the economy is state capitalist and not, in fact, socialist or communist is because the state acts, almost, like a private enterprise in its economic activity by virtue of operating within a model centered around the accumulation of capital. The fact that China isn't based around a production-for-use model is all that's really needed to throw the idea that China is socialist into the trash.

but it's partly about how software engineers are expected to do incredibly difficult tasks and projects because the public generally don't understand the complexity behind it. And at the same time, software advances much faster than hardware.

To be honest, I'm not even sure how we got this far. Although I'd add that the development of software will, eventually, lead to a place where the development of both software and hardware becomes easier as the software's capacity grows. I have no time frame for this, though.

My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century.

Quote from: SexyPiranha on October 28, 2014, 07:04:50 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on October 28, 2014, 06:56:24 PM

This is some sci-fi shit.

The entire month gone by seems to just be one breakthrough, discovery or innovation effort after another. You know that curve of scientific progress that just ramps up through the ceiling? I forget the name but that's what happening right now.

I will be so fucking pissed if the retards in charge destroy everything before we can start playing Forerunner <_<

I think you're referring to the Law of Exponential Return or Accelerating Change. Don't let the name fool you, I'm pretty sure it's less of a law and more of a general observation based on technological trends. Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil use it to justify the idea of a technological singularity.

HAIL THE KURZWEIL

Yeah, but he's dumd.

If Jigsaw and the Joker fucked.

Mickey Mouse, if he were a person.

Snip

(really a bell shape if you include the first half)

Except we already have the capacity to create incredibly intelligent robots (see: Watson).

The thrust of innovation comes not from our ability to programme, but the robots' ability to learn. I think you're underestimating the rate at which we can replace human labour which is more "intellectual".

And, even if we can't, such jobs only and can only form a fraction of the economy. The socioeconomic impact will be virtually identical, either way.

SOMEONE PLEASE DO ME

THIS IS TOO FUNNY

I'm still waiting for him to demonstrate how China is communist by either Marx and Engel's measures or by the Oxford English Dictionary's.

He's failed on both counts, thus far.