Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Utilities should be owned by the British state if anything, not foreign states.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
TFL staff have all the favourable things they do because RMT is one of the strongest unions. The rest have been broken and have very little influence.
The government use the right wing press to undermine the unions and drive support for laws that stifle strike action. The 50% turnout rule for strike action to be legal would be interesting if it applied to forming a government or council elections. Government think tanks made up of business advisors always suggest that restricting unions and workers rights would be good for the UK. The media paint unions as trying to undermine the economy and paradoxically being against the public, despite representing normal working people.
As a teacher I've noticed that should we go on strike the press coverage becomes about the dreadful inconvenience to parents, and there's little appreciation for the wider picture that education and quality of teaching their children get long term is under constant threat. The profession hemmorages teachers, the budget cuts make it difficult to buy resources and hire support staff. But we're the enemy if we strike. A lot of that has to do with the way the government, business and media collude to paint unions as a bad thing, trying to make the majority of people in this country forget that most of their working rights were won through strike action, because industry and government don't volunteer anything.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
Yeah. Exactly. The TFL, services run with no compatition to force then innovate. Nothing to make them have to create or force new ideas.
If there was no competition we would have no mobile ride hailing apps etc. Much as they caused fault the broke the status que.
Amthere needs to be a balence of the two, but alone government run become fat, stale, lazy and backwards.
They have no compatition, no will to change he and union type dinosours linger, and linger decades past there relavence.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
reds8n wrote: [
Which empires was it who built those sewer systems, aqueducts, roads etc etc etc again ?
That's infrastructure as opposed to services. Infrastructure is a physical item with a set cost that usually only requires minimal maintenance expenditure after being constructed. I'm referring more to the concept of government departments running public services, things such as transport networks, the NHS, power networks, telegraphy systems, and so on. Unlike a road (which just requires the resurfacing team to go past every so often), a post office requires a constant physical presence, interaction with the public, balancing of regular budgets, and so on. There is a certain small degree of overlap (railways need tracks laying, etc), but building infrastructure has long been an established facet of the state. Even castles technically qualify for that.
Services though? Not so much. If you go back to feudal times, you had your tax collector (to shake down the peasants), your soldiers (to defend the tax collector and yourself), and that was about it in terms of government 'departments'. Establishing set institutions with funding to run in the name of the public good was the quite Victorian concept in this country for the most part. Even the Royal mail, which predates the rest back to the sixteenth century, was effectively run as a personal fiefdom/business half the time and was explicitly intended for facilitating governance than for the public good. The Penny Post in 1840 was what opened it up to the public.
(1) Care of the city: the repair and preservation of temples, sewers and aqueducts; street cleansing and paving; regulations regarding traffic, dangerous animals and dilapidated buildings; precautions against fire; superintendence of baths and taverns; enforcement of sumptuary laws; punishment of gamblers and usurers; the care of public morals generally, including the prevention of foreign superstitions and the registration of meretrices. They also punished those who had too large a share of the ager publicus, or kept too many cattle on the state pastures.
(2) Care of provisions: investigation of the quality of the articles supplied and the correctness of weights and measures; the purchase of grain for disposal at a low price in case of necessity.
(3) Care of the games: superintendence and organization of the public games, as well as of those given by themselves and private individuals (e.g. at funerals) at their own expense. Ambitious persons often spent enormous sums in this manner to win the popular favor with a view to official advancement.[3]
Later emperors all used free or greatly subsidized grain to keep the populace fed. The political use of the grain supply along with gladiatorial games and other entertainments gave rise to the saying "Bread and circuses".[10] As the empire continued, the annona became more complex. During the reign of Septimius Severus, olive oil was added to the distribution. During the reign of Aurelian, however, a major reorganization of the alimenta took place. It appears that he ceased to distribute free grain; instead, he issued free bread, and added salt, pork and wine to the dole, which was provided free or at a reduced cost. These measures were continued by successive emperors.[11]
The Romans did not only demand cheap basic food but also subsidized culture. The emperors assumed the responsibility of providing the citizens with publicly funded entertainment and arts.
I've read various claims about the amount for this , up to and around the equivalent of $100M pe annum spent by the Govt. on these sort of things.
They also has various public parks/open spaces for the citizenry as well.
... although TBF if you've got actual slaves then one supposes it probably quite a bit cheaper to maintain such things.
I'm still waiting for high speed fibre in central Henley-on-Thames, a town with half a dozen internet companies of various types and sizes sitting on the edge of the M4/Thames high tech corridor. BT installed the roadside cabinets several years ago, but they failed to plumb in the fibre to all the houses. The bad bit is that they said they did.
The irony of this situation is that the broadband companies offer fibre in my area because BT have told them incorrectly that it is available. Only it isn't, so I am restricted to average about 17mbps download and 1mbps upload. However, I am not allowed to speak directly to BT and get the situation fixed. I have to complain about the slow speed to my provider, who advises me to upgrade to fibre, and when I do I get the same speed because there isn't any fibre there.
At my house in Japan I had 100mbps up and down in 2009.
Fibre doesn't actually run to your house. Your house is still connected using good old copper. Fibre is only plumbed into the exchanges which make use of the extra bandwidth to process a lot more information.
If BT have upgraded the exchanges you should have access to it. Your house doesn't need new cabling. There is something fishy going on if you don't have it.
(My place is connected to the Rowstock exchange, not a great way from you, and we had fibre speeds the same day it was announced)
Yes, I know that. The problem is that BT haven't plumbed all the fibre into the cabinet. This was confirmed to me (unofficially) by a BT engineer they sent to investigate the cabinet.
Note that I had fibre all the way to the home in Japan 9 years ago.
reds8n wrote: The Romans did not only demand cheap basic food but also subsidized culture. The emperors assumed the responsibility of providing the citizens with publicly funded entertainment and arts.
All right, but ... what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, I know that. The problem is that BT haven't plumbed all the fibre into the cabinet. This was confirmed to me (unofficially) by a BT engineer they sent to investigate the cabinet.
Note that I had fibre all the way to the home in Japan 9 years ago.
I have fibre all the way to my house in my 25.000-ish Spanish town. Only one company installed the actual fibre, but you can take your pick of a half-dozen companies for the contract, up to 300mbps symmetric IIRC (I took just 60, because that was the cheapest package).
Ketara wrote: That's infrastructure as opposed to services. Infrastructure is a physical item with a set cost that usually only requires minimal maintenance expenditure after being constructed. I'm referring more to the concept of government departments running public services, things such as transport networks, the NHS, power networks, telegraphy systems, and so on. Unlike a road (which just requires the resurfacing team to go past every so often), a post office requires a constant physical presence, interaction with the public, balancing of regular budgets, and so on. There is a certain small degree of overlap (railways need tracks laying, etc), but building infrastructure has long been an established facet of the state. Even castles technically qualify for that.
Services though? Not so much. If you go back to feudal times, you had your tax collector (to shake down the peasants), your soldiers (to defend the tax collector and yourself), and that was about it in terms of government 'departments'. Establishing set institutions with funding to run in the name of the public good was the quite Victorian concept in this country for the most part. Even the Royal mail, which predates the rest back to the sixteenth century, was effectively run as a personal fiefdom/business half the time and was explicitly intended for facilitating governance than for the public good. The Penny Post in 1840 was what opened it up to the public.
Infrastructure maintenance can't be just dismissed as 'minimal maintenance'. Most infrastructure projects will have maintenance costs in excess of the original construction within either 10 or 20 years. Almost all projects over their lives will end up costing more in maintenance than the original construction. This is even more true for older, lower tech infrastructure, for instance unsealed. Its always been the case that a nation built around large infrastructure projects will also have large maintenance teams.
And while it's true that there were very few national services, but this wasn't because there was no understanding of government playing that role, but more because there were no nationwide services. There was no nationwide postal system for the same reason there was no nationwide fast food chains. Low levels of communications technology, economic immaturity and organisational limitations prevented running nationwide operations.
Thanks for those links. The Romans are waaaaay beyond my specialty, and it's nice to learn something new about them. I'd certainly agree that the Aediles would qualify as a service department/providers, given that they both are involved with the government and the maintenance of the city. At the same time however, it is notable that they did not receive any sort of government funding for their provision of those services. It all had to come from their own pockets. So they're both of the government and not at the same time. It's an interesting juxtaposition really, and I'm not aware of any later Western equivalent. I know that Roman culture was massively obsessed with status, and the provision of these services by the Aediles appears to have been undertaken for rewards of personal credit/eminence. Without a similar set of cultural priorities, I doubt that any sort of formalised institution of that type could arise elsewhere. The samurai of the Tokugawa period would be the closest I could think of, but even they still took funding from the local Daimyo.
The Cursus Publicus however, would appear to more akin to the earliest form of British postal service, namely a personal sinecure with a minor veil of governmental supervision. The link you gave actually specifies;
Despite evidence that the government did supervise the functioning of the network of stations, and presumably its development over the centuries, the service was not supplied by a department of state in the same way as (say) the modern Royal Mail in the UK. As Altay Coskun notes in a review of Anne Kolb’s work done in German,[4] the system “simply provided an infrastructure for magistrates and messengers who traveled through the empire. It consisted of thousands of stations placed along the main roads; these had to supply fresh horses, mules, donkeys, and oxen, as well as carts, food, fodder, and accommodation.” Thus, there was no “department of postal service” with employees paid by the emperor. The one sending a missive would have to supply the courier, and the stations had to be supplied out of the resources of the local areas through which the roads passed. As seen in several rescripts and in the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny, the emperor will sometimes pay for the cost of sending an ambassador to Rome along the cursus publicus, particularly in cases where the cause is just.
Still, very interesting stuff. Thanks again for the links!
sebster wrote:Infrastructure maintenance can't be just dismissed as 'minimal maintenance'. Most infrastructure projects will have maintenance costs in excess of the original construction within either 10 or 20 years. Almost all projects over their lives will end up costing more in maintenance than the original construction. This is even more true for older, lower tech infrastructure, for instance unsealed. Its always been the case that a nation built around large infrastructure projects will also have large maintenance teams.
And while it's true that there were very few national services, but this wasn't because there was no understanding of government playing that role, but more because there were no nationwide services. There was no nationwide postal system for the same reason there was no nationwide fast food chains. Low levels of communications technology, economic immaturity and organisational limitations prevented running nationwide operations.
You have to understand that I wasn't talking about 'national services' but simply differentiating between three things; namely
1. infrastructure erection and maintenance (so castles, bridges, roads, wells, town walls, etc),
2. government organisations established/funded primarily for governmental use (tax collectors, the Royal Dockyards, the early Post Office, etc), and
3. public services (that is to say, a service provided for the general public/people) organised, and subsidised/paid for by the State (See the unified Edwardian railways, the Victorian poorhouses, etc).
Whether a public service is national or not isn't really a factor. With regards to infrastructure, maintenance depends on the item. A well might need a new rope every few years, but that's hardly much of an expense.
As said, you do get overlap between all three areas (a Post Office needs roof can need mending, a herepath lets both civilians and troops move between burhs swiftly, walls shield both citizens and Kings, etc), but we're talking more about where the funding comes from, and the intent as regards to who the service is provided for. Repairing machinery at the Small Arms Factory in the 1860's isn't providing a public service, after all, even if government funding is used.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
Bunkum. Utter, utter bunkum.
Look at the London to Hastings line. It's a single line, run by a single operator. They charge whatever they want, because commuters have little alternative. That's a fundamental failure of privatisation. It didn't increase competition. It handed a monopoly to private interests. Slash services, lay off staff, jack up up up up up those prices. Squeeze 'em til the pips squeak, and then charge 'em some more.
Same with water companies. Sod fixing the pipes, just charge your end users more to make up for it. Electricity? Same parent company owns the power station and the distributor. They sell wholesale to themselves at a ridiculous mark up, because we kind of need it.
Buses? Yeah. Only one company in my town. And don't you feel it in the price.
Privatisation has achieved none of the things you just claimed. None of them. It puts profit motive up above service levels. Train companies are the worst. They're subisidised, but still report large profits. We're being ripped off here. But the lie of privatisation keeps people lapping it up.
It was a bit strong, but then we are talking about people being (presumably wilfully) ignorant of reality.
Let's consider the railways. They're part of the backbone of the UK. For those of us in the Sarf East, we need them to commute to Nodnol so we can work. And the higher wages we earn up in The Smoke are brought home with us, to be spent in our local economy.
But those Railways are run at a profit. And that profit is funnelled into large companies, alongside their government subsidies.
Why are we subsidising a clearly profitable venture? Where is the sense in that?
Would it not be better to bring it all back in-house, and get it properly contributing to the treasury in a way where no Tax Lawyer can loophole cash away?
Only a few years ago, one of the franchises was handed back. State run for a period, service improved and profits were made. It was then sold off again, taking said profits out of the treasury.
That's insane. It's the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. It's like me getting someone else to do my job. They charge my employer 20% more, and I get 15% of the earnings as my own income. Why would anyone do that? Why do we allow goverments to do that?
Royal Mail. Privatised. Prices up, services slashed. Golf Clap anyone?
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
If the 70's prove anything the state can be utterly incompant just as much as private sector.
While I'm all for nationalising services when it is a national strategic concern or where it can be shown a lack of competition in a sector is detrimental to the consumer (energy and transport are the big ones here), there is truth in jhe90's statement.
One need only look at the ongoing farce that is TFL, with its bullet proof pensions and inability to sack anyone no matter how incompetent. Or the Fire Service with pensions that would make an MEP blush.
We need national services but we also need the cut and thrust, the challenges and innovation of private sector. There should be room for the underlings or others with better ideas and thinking to take over. To remove the stale old leadership if they are not improving, innovating and evolving to fit the times and changing nation.
Bunkum. Utter, utter bunkum.
Look at the London to Hastings line. It's a single line, run by a single operator. They charge whatever they want, because commuters have little alternative. That's a fundamental failure of privatisation. It didn't increase competition. It handed a monopoly to private interests. Slash services, lay off staff, jack up up up up up those prices. Squeeze 'em til the pips squeak, and then charge 'em some more.
Same with water companies. Sod fixing the pipes, just charge your end users more to make up for it. Electricity? Same parent company owns the power station and the distributor. They sell wholesale to themselves at a ridiculous mark up, because we kind of need it.
Buses? Yeah. Only one company in my town. And don't you feel it in the price.
Privatisation has achieved none of the things you just claimed. None of them. It puts profit motive up above service levels. Train companies are the worst. They're subisidised, but still report large profits. We're being ripped off here. But the lie of privatisation keeps idiots lapping it up.
This. I don't understand this idea that privatizing suddenly fixes everything. The only time public companies are an issue is where you have protective legislation barring entry or state subsidization preventing competition. In most cases it is the monopoly that is at issue rather than who owns the monopoly, and a state monopoly in a market with high barriers to entry is better than a private monopoly. Some of those barriers are integral to the product. You also have the issue that the private sector is primarily interested in high profit low risk. Look at healthcare in the US, where those who are high risk and need medical care the most struggle to get it, or what has happened to the postal sector in the UK where vary careful legislation and restrictive contracts had to be drawn up to ensure operators did not just cherry pick valuable routes and parcel post.
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
A Swedish example, admittedly, but when we dropped the state monopoly on pharmacies and made the state-run pharmacies into a profit-driven, state-owned company people, especially in Norrland (the north of Sweden) where pharmacies were few and far between, actually got an easier time to obtain medicine and pharmaceuticals.
Of course, there's also a very compelling argument that none of this was actually due to the deregulation at all. After the deregulation a quadrillion different pharmaceuticals popped up within a few hundred meters of each other in the major cities while Norrland got nothing of the sort, since there's no profit in opening a pharmacy in such a sparsely populated area. Indeed many pharmacies of the now-profit-driven state company in Norrland shut down, as there was no profit for them there. What ended up saving this reform from becoming an example of the clusterfeth you've described in the rail industry is the fact that it became possible to use the internet in order to have your medicines delivered to a local drop-off point, which ended up increasing the availability of these drugs. There's still the problem with trained, licenced pharmacists no longer being available locally for consultation, so even this reform didn't end up completely successful, but at least it's something, eh?
UK rail ticket prices are set according to a formula designed by the government. This allows operating companies to increase prices by an average of CPI (in August) + x% from the next January.
There is regulation, therefore, however it allows the railway company to increase commuting tickets more by increasing the price of super-advance apex fares less. This is because it is current policy to make rail users pay more for upgrades and the overall cost of operating the service.
Naturally, since the rail companies are private (or PLC) companies, they want to make a profit, so the cost of tickets needs to be increased more than the actual cost of running the service.
This in theory could be avoided by the government re-nationalising the entire system and running it at cost. Since the government currently pays quite substantial subsidies to the rail operating companies, there might be a good saving to the public purse as well as the public's purses.
Japan, well known for its excellent railway system used to have a mixture of publicly owned lines (Japan Rail) and private lines. Japan Rail was denationalised a couple of decades ago without any loss of service, OTOH the private lines have always been very well run, reliable and not notably more expensive than the public lines.
This I think is because Japanese railway companies see their job as enabling people to move around, get to work, go shopping and do other activities that often benefit the rail company owners in a different way. For example, along the Odakyu Line into Kanagawa, a lot of the department stores near the stations are owned by the Odakyu "keiretsu", so passengers on that line not only pay Odakyu for travelling, they tend to travel to places where they will spend more money in Odakyu stores.
I recently visited Germany, and was interested to find that the standard fare for travel in the Rhein-Main public transport area is 1 Euro for any journey. There are also season tickets that make it even cheaper. One effect of this policy is that there are no ticket gates and inspectors, which is a significant saving to the company.
However I think the Germans like the Japanese see the public transport system as being a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
Sweden, unfortunately, looked to Britain as a model of rail privatization, with predictable results (i.e. exactly the same clusterfeth). While it doesn't necessarily prove that the model itself is flawed, we haven't managed to make it work any better than you guys.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Sweden, unfortunately, looked to Britain as a model of rail privatization, with predictable results (i.e. exactly the same clusterfeth). While it doesn't necessarily prove that the model itself is flawed, we haven't managed to make it work any better than you guys.
Keep natural monopolies in government hands seems to be the conclusion. For a Spanish perspective, ever since rail transport was open to compatition no private operator has dared to enter the passenger market. Catalan regional lines were transfered to the regional Catalan government, but that's it.
There are a few private freight operators, though.
Well it appears that May degraded herself even further last week by taking the begging bowl to the EU just to try and keep herself in power for a bit longer.
Apparently the discussions went something like this (with Homer = Theresa May)
More seriously it appears that Juncker is actually supporting her on this. Given previous information I think the question we must ask is "What backroom deal has she made". We know from the DUP that she will sacrifice whatever she can to stay in power. I would suspect that in the fullness of time it will become apparent what she has done here...
Of course I support the EU so this almost certainly benefits them so all is good. On the other hand May will be found out and hopefully just another nail in the coffin for the Tories.
This. I don't understand this idea that privatizing suddenly fixes everything. The only time public companies are an issue is where you have protective legislation barring entry or state subsidization preventing competition. In most cases it is the monopoly that is at issue rather than who owns the monopoly, and a state monopoly in a market with high barriers to entry is better than a private monopoly. Some of those barriers are integral to the product. You also have the issue that the private sector is primarily interested in high profit low risk. Look at healthcare in the US, where those who are high risk and need medical care the most struggle to get it, or what has happened to the postal sector in the UK where vary careful legislation and restrictive contracts had to be drawn up to ensure operators did not just cherry pick valuable routes and parcel post.
Privatisation can work but it requires sufficient competition to drive both innovation and to benefit the populace. As soon as you get a monopoly (or in some ways worse effectively a cartel, e.g. energy and housing) then in effect it becomes a licence to print money for the companies as there isn't alternative viable options. Any new start up company quickly gets crushed or bought out; these companies also have a harder time because they do not get the efficiency of scale or the tax break benefits multinational companies can get by moving money to the country with the lowest taxes (e.g. Apple, Amazon etc). This results in a few large companies that then have a huge lobbying power in government because there is no one else to argue against what they are saying. In these cases there is an advantage of having Government led services as that can result in more honest competition. Of course the lobbying group will state they are inefficient and embroiled by union arguments, but the reality is there are more strikes with private organisations than there is the public. These organisations are scared of what a government backed scheme could do because they simply do not need to make the same level of profit to be viable (they don't have share holders to pacify). The other advantage is that a state run organisation has more control in emergency circumstances (lets say huge flooding issues in an area) - in those cases the government can use it's own resources to meet a need (lets say transporting soldiers to the flood hit areas by rail); whereas a company would start with "how much are you going to pay us?". This both slows the response and likely results in a more inefficient roll out.
The disadvantage with government backed operations is that MPs and Councillors have a habit of sticking their fingers in when it isn't needed. A few people complain in the Daily Fail and all of a sudden every rail line has to follow a new inefficient process because of those complaints (rather than looking at the wider scientific evidence e.g. the Badger cull). This can make them less efficient over time. A government business that is allowed to operate as a business however should always out perform a private business where there is limited competition.
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. The privatisation was mostly reversed and now things run somewhat better again. At least Britain is not that bad...
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. At least Britain is not that bad...
I think there needs to be a balence of sorts.
The public sector needs somthing to force it to keep innovating, changing, moving, evolving.
Private sector is bad on its own. We need some kind of hybrid system.
Genuine innovation is difficult and requires skill and vision. Something lacking in a lot of people running this country and managing public services. Problem with a lot of 'innovating' popular with various leaders and management is that it's mostly the short term sort that involves everyone lower down the pecking order working a lot more for less and making cuts to things in the name of efficiency. Always looks good on the balance sheet and pleases shareholders, does little for the long term - and public services have to look long term, longer than the current government or the tenure of their managers. I'm very skeptical of the argument for private involvement bringing in innovation, privatisation is all about squeezing the most out of something for the least investment.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Genuine innovation is difficult and requires skill and vision. Something lacking in a lot of people running this country and managing public services. Problem with a lot of 'innovating' popular with various leaders and management is that it's mostly the short term sort that involves everyone lower down the pecking order working a lot more for less and making cuts to things in the name of efficiency. Always looks good on the balance sheet and pleases shareholders, does little for the long term - and public services have to look long term, longer than the current government or the tenure of their managers. I'm very skeptical of the argument for private involvement bringing in innovation, privatisation is all about squeezing the most out of something for the least investment.
True... But the public sector is a bloated, fat sloth in this country. It's so bloated it can barely move its over sized girth.
It innovates at glacial pace. It's staid. It never changes. If it was up to some we would still be running steam trains becyof the engineers union or some rubbish.
Like the above. Deciding to use copper over fibre.
When they held all the phones. And gas supply of devices and services we had rotary phones forever. Our devices where practically relics vs say America.
Our public sector needs a solid kick up the arse at times to do things. Why we need some hybrid. We need the give Ment control on cost, making sure things are deployed nation wise.
But the kick up arse to innovate. To depevelop as monoloaply incorages sloth. It's glacial progress.
If someone could point me to a single example of privatisation actually delivering on it's promises, and not simply handing cartels to private venture capitalists, I'd love to see it.
Alas, I can only offer examples from the Netherlands (where almost everything has been privatised now and it is bad, especially on the railways) and Russia, where privatisation made the entire country collapse in a decade of extreme poverty and mafia rule. The privatisation was mostly reversed and now things run somewhat better again. At least Britain is not that bad...
Clearly you don't commute from Henley to London on the 07:38 train.
The joke being that no-one does any more, since GWR cancelled this service a few months ago, leaving only one direct train in either direction all day.
I have work experience in the public sector. Waste disposal. And it was dire. Horrendously inefficient and wasteful. Yet I know that if the private sector was to get involved they'd only jack the prices up in the pursuit of profit. There must be a happy medium.
The biggest problem the public sector have is lack of money for change. Innovation and improvement required investment. And for the past 30+ years politicians of all stripes have ensured that the public sector has no money to spare. Even when there is money for a new process or system it either goes to a new Fad rather than fixing a long standing issue or to the lowest bitting private implementation which is inevitable the lowest price because they massively under bid, which means they then either need more money or cut corners, and if they don’t get it they walk away.
Anyone who claims the public sector or public sector workers are the problem just needs to look at ATOS, G4S or any number or PFIs.
I disagree. Having seen closely how both education and local authorities operate there is plenty of money, too little knowledge, too little acceptance that they lack said knowledge, arse covering to maintain positions, incredible vanity and largess on per projects and actual corruption on a few occasions.
At a very basic level the amount of consultants employed and fees paid to manage schemes to cover these inadequacies is incredible.
Passing these self same self serving individuals (of all parties) whole industries would be a recipe for a return to the late 70's is a disaster. I only saw the back end of it but it made the last recession look like a cake walk.
What is needed is some leadership from our so called leaders. Privitised industry with leader with the actual will to censor licensees that don't perform.
notprop wrote: I disagree. Having seen closely how both education and local authorities operate there is plenty of money, too little knowledge, too little acceptance that they lack said knowledge, arse covering to maintain positions, incredible vanity and largess on per projects and actual corruption on a few occasions.
At a very basic level the amount of consultants employed and fees paid to manage schemes to cover these inadequacies is incredible.
Passing these self same self serving individuals (of all parties) whole industries would be a recipe for a return to the late 70's is a disaster. I only saw the back end of it but it made the last recession look like a cake walk.
What is needed is some leadership from our so called leaders. Privitised industry with leader with the actual will to censor licensees that don't perform.
Theirs plenty of money for stupid projects. Plenty of cash for some useless stuff it seems at times but seems not ernough for the NHS etxc.
Future War Cultist wrote: I have work experience in the public sector. Waste disposal. And it was dire. Horrendously inefficient and wasteful. Yet I know that if the private sector was to get involved they'd only jack the prices up in the pursuit of profit. There must be a happy medium.
I did 3 shifts on the Rubbish trucks, then left for a Forklift job.
I work in IT, in a school which was forced to outsource the IT to a private company under the BSF programme. As a result I got transferred out, then after 3 years or so the school (plus the others who had been forced into the same support contract) had to spend a huge amount of money buying the contract out and returning to in-house provision - so I got transferred back.
The 'support' over the three years was dire - bargain basement equipment purchased without consulting the school over its actual requirements (105 unrequested netbooks turned up one year - the same year the iPad was launched. Needless to say, the netbooks have barely been touched for some time and teachers have moaned about the lack of tablets) - oh and don't forget the extra 30% added to the cost of all hardware and spare parts to cover the admin of purchasing them. Systems put in place because the provider already had them set up for other schools so didn't have to spend anything, even though they were a poor fit for how the school wanted to run things. Any request for flexibility was deemed 'out of scope' of the contract and subject to extortionate payments, to point where the school had to hire at least 2 new members of staff to pick up the work its IT department was no longer doing.
'Cut and thrust' and 'innovation' it ain't. Diverting huge sums of public money into the pockets of shareholders it surely is.
Private industry is just as inefficient as government, often moreso. Most ventures fail, and fail for for a reason. Fads, incompetent management that cant be removed, people too stupid to realize how stupid they are, CYA syndrome, wasted dollars on inane consultants, funding made available for special projects but not needed fundamental stuff, etc is no less common there than in the public sector. That stuff is pretty universal.
Civil Service and Government departments will send a couple of civil servants, earning maybe 35k a year into meetings with companies carrying teams of lawyers and negotiators earning 6 figure salaries, each.
And any rising talents or the type who are genuinely good at that sort of thing? They'll eventually end up getting ground down by the other 'stuff' that comes with working for the civil service and end up becoming one of those 6 figure salary people themselves.
So, in short, no matter how many ways we try to skin a cat, all we end up with is a dead cat.
notprop wrote: Bearing I mind the buying power Gvt agencies have it always puzzles me how they can constant feth up buying stuff so often and so badly?
It's not that surprising. You should see how badly the military screw it up.
"You'd like that off the shelf product for your company? Not a problem madam. What's that? It's for the military? Let's just add an extra zero on the end. You say that's not a problem, lovely."
Then we throw baby officer lawyers who earn less than £45k into court to fight against the likes of Gilbert Blades. Don't think the guy has ever lost.
Yeah, we're crap at managing money. Don't even get me started on the disparity of funding between the flashy, sexy, fast jet boys and everybody else (I've somehow found myself working under an army driven branch, which means our funding is the square root of cock all).
notprop wrote: Bearing I mind the buying power Gvt agencies have it always puzzles me how they can constant feth up buying stuff so often and so badly?
In my experience it's a mixture of incompetence, nepotism and bribery. Case in point, our council has just started buying Mercedes lorries fitted with Zoeller lifters instead of the tried and tested Dennis lorries fitted with Terburg lifters that they've been using for decades. The Mercs are god awful, and the Zoeller lifters even more so. They're not even cheaper, so that excuse won't work.
So why buy them? Because the executive who went out to buy them (without any input from either the transport managers or drivers) thought 'oh wow, Mercedes make lorries! I drive a Mercedes! These are so cool, we have to have them!' Why would they think that, and why do they even have this position? Because they're an incompetent under educated dim wit who just happen to be the wife of the council head's band mate (in the Orange Order). Add in the very real possibility of a 'bung' to make sure they buy these mercs and Dennis never stood a chance.
This is just belfast though. I don't think things would be as bad in the rest of the UK. Or at least I hope not.
Future War Cultist wrote: [
This is just belfast though. I don't think things would be as bad in the rest of the UK. Or at least I hope not.
Council level jobs are where the actual corruption tends to happen in government. Contracts are regularly given to companies owned by the mates of the local leader, high level non-jobs to their kids, nice days out are accepted from soliciting companies, etc, be they Tory or Labour.
It's a mark of respectability that it doesn't tend to happen with the Liberal Democrat ones to anywhere near the same degree. Usually because they're nice middle class types with enough money of their own that they don't need bungs, and vaguely well meaning enough that they don't go out of their way to corrupt the system for their own benefit. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen with them, but if you read the Rotten Boroughs section of Private Eye, or browse Rottencouncil.co.uk, you get maybe one case of a Lib Dem getting caught with sticky fingers, spending money on shutting people up, and behaving like tyrants for every ten happenstances from the other parties. Certainly, all the official Lib Dems I ever met from Vince Cable on down tend to leave me with the impression that they generally are trying to make things better, even when they screw it up royally.
Lib Dems aren't so good at big government, but they're actually the best of the lot when it comes to the local aspects.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Genuine innovation is difficult and requires skill and vision. Something lacking in a lot of people running this country and managing public services. Problem with a lot of 'innovating' popular with various leaders and management is that it's mostly the short term sort that involves everyone lower down the pecking order working a lot more for less and making cuts to things in the name of efficiency. Always looks good on the balance sheet and pleases shareholders, does little for the long term - and public services have to look long term, longer than the current government or the tenure of their managers. I'm very skeptical of the argument for private involvement bringing in innovation, privatisation is all about squeezing the most out of something for the least investment.
Yup, We need innovation from the government to make innovation in the private sector possible. Nobody would be stupid enough to try to invent the commercial internet or WWW but once those were established private companies were able to flourish on top of, or next to, those. All the fundamental tech that made the iPhone/smartphones possible was developed with government money but it were private companies that used that public R&D and then added some of their own refinement and R&D to make those into a commercial successes.
Vaktathi wrote:Private industry is just as inefficient as government, often moreso. Most ventures fail, and fail for for a reason. Fads, incompetent management that cant be removed, people too stupid to realize how stupid they are, CYA syndrome, wasted dollars on inane consultants, funding made available for special projects but not needed fundamental stuff, etc is no less common there than in the public sector. That stuff is pretty universal.
Survivorship bias, it's what makes self-help style business books possible. Ignore the failures, make some "rules" up that somehow correlate with the winners, and sell it as a way for people to improve themselves, their lives, or their companies. It doesn't matter than most companies die within a few years when government institutions regularly get vilified and entrepreneurs get deified. Silicon Valley venture capital is more or less just a lottery while somehow still thinking of itself as being made up of the smartest people on earth. They tried to sell us expensive Wi-Fi juicers on top of a Keurig/Nespresso pod model (link) or reinvent hotels (link), busses (link), slimfast (but with mould, link, link, link, link), and hundreds of new delivery systems for take out food or other services that are supposed to replace basic housekeeping skills (all at inflates prices so they can skim more from the top and entrench themselves as the middleman). Instead of trying to get an efficient public transportation system they wonder about the horrors of a pre-Uber transportation landscape and how people even managed to survive in such primitive times. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Vaktathi wrote: Private industry is just as inefficient as government, often moreso.
Yes and no.
A well run business is always sleeker than a well run public department. The business is far more aware of the bottom line, whereas a public department knows that it has the taxpayers wallet backing it up. It hires and fires more easily, and isn't vulnerable to expenses caused by political whim/necessity. It can pay what it needs for talent without being judged and invest for the future without worrying about needing to cheesepare down expenditure for an election. It's inherently a more flexible, yet at the same time, more punishing model. A company can go bankrupt, and nobody will save it from inept management decisions. That is, unless it can tie itself into a key goods monopoly or public service provision. Then the market pressures fade and it can simply raise prices to compensate for any deficiencies or incorrect decision making.
Accordingly I'd argue that private sectors are generally more flexible and efficient than the government, but primarily when operating within the private sector. The minute that it begins to assume the mantle of responsibilities for public services, it also begins to incorporate the mentality of the public sector; that is to say taking the current state of affairs for granted. The security provides both a lack of dynamic management and a necessity for middle managers to continually cost cut in order to receive promotion.
The best way to ensure that such things don't occur is to try and artificially stimulate competition. Then theoretically, the laxity doesn't set in. But that competition has to be real, and the government has to keep an eagle eye on it to prevent oligopoly. That's the part where we've tripped up with the current model. The government has shown itself unwilling to regulate and supervise effectively; both in framing the system and in enforcing the rules around it. I don't think that the 'Franchise' model is inherently discredited so much as this version of it and the government involved.
For example, when Southern was causing all that hooha a few months ago (which carries on even now to an extent), the Government quite literally amended their contract with Southern so that Southern wouldn't be in breach of their contract thus forcing the Government to step in. Had we had a Government willing to do so? It would have served to shove a stick up the arse of the other operators not to let things degrade to that point. If the Government were also willing to operate their own train company competitively and snap the franchises back if they didn't provide value for money? Perhaps it would work then.
notprop wrote: Bearing I mind the buying power Gvt agencies have it always puzzles me how they can constant feth up buying stuff so often and so badly?
In my experience it's a mixture of incompetence, nepotism and bribery. Case in point, our council has just started buying Mercedes lorries fitted with Zoeller lifters instead of the tried and tested Dennis lorries fitted with Terburg lifters that they've been using for decades. The Mercs are god awful, and the Zoeller lifters even more so. They're not even cheaper, so that excuse won't work.
If your council leaves public procurement of something as significant as garbage lorries to the choice of a single official instead of a tender system there's something very wrong (and very unusual) there.
notprop wrote: It probably was a tender, but these things are easily swayed.
Not if it was done properly, and it's way more complicated to do it that for a private company.
Private purchases are indeed easily swayed. I should know that since I work in sales. Personal relationship with the buyer is often one key component on whether one buys from you or the competition, and gifts/tickets for football or F1/private travels, etc. are also part of the equation.
Dealing with both the private and public sector I can tell you its several orders of magnitude more difficult to play dirty to put it that way in public purchases than private. And when it happens, and people get caught they lose their job and even go to jail. In the private sector..... well, it's just another day at the office.
Future War Cultist wrote: I have work experience in the public sector. Waste disposal. And it was dire. Horrendously inefficient and wasteful. Yet I know that if the private sector was to get involved they'd only jack the prices up in the pursuit of profit. There must be a happy medium.
Private for-profit companies that are majority (75%+) state owned? You notionally get the gains from being private sector, and the state gets most of the profits to reinvest.
Or we just need a government with some ability and vision to manage.
Same for housing; housing benefit rent payments should largely be coming back to the government, and the government should be trying to get the household bills of benefits claimants down as far as possible (since it's paying for them anyway). Just think how great it'd be (for the economy and environment) if there was a solar panel on the roof of every council house.
For every claim of a bloated public sector, I can point to terrible, inefficient service provided by the private sector to the public sector. Bid low, undercut ruthlessly and provide shoddy, sub-standard services whilst piling on the costs afterwards.
Serco, Annington Homes, Carrollion Amey etc have all bid for and acquired juicy govt contracts that they pump the tax payer for. I've had the displeasure of having to work alongside these companies, and their workers are for the most part, disinterested, complacent and unhelpful thanks to poor pay and conditions and unrealistic demands.
The private sector just does not work in these circumstances.
The problem is ideology and unwillingness to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Indeed, I think the outsourced stuff is worse. Like the G4S contract for Olympic uniforms for staff, working out at £6k/staff member.
Serco in hospitals is one that never made any sense to me. NHS must be up there in terms of biggest caterers and cleaning crews, so I can't understand why they don't have their own internal NHS catering and cleaning divisions, instead of outsourcing it to Serco (who must be making a profit on it). I can see the point outsourcing catering/cleaning if you're a small office and you don't need full time staff but the NHS has outsourced staff in in shifts.
notprop wrote: Bearing I mind the buying power Gvt agencies have it always puzzles me how they can constant feth up buying stuff so often and so badly?
In the school system at least it seems to be CYA and a lack of willingness to take risks, combined with this whole "if you don't spend your budget this year, it gets slashed next year" nonsense.
For instance, school I'm familiar with has a catalogue for supplies, and everything must be bought through that catalogue where it has it. Teachers can buy the same stuff for a quarter of the price elsewhere but aren't allowed because "official supplier". Due to having surplus budget at the end of the year, the same school splashed out on 2x PS3's for the break room that were barely used, but the idea of having money left over at the end of the year is unforgivable.
There's also just gak poor planning; a school near us was just rebuild under PFI (which is a disgrace), including a fully fitted and stocked Nursery. Nursery isn't open though because the council can't afford the staff for it. No considerations were made for growing population and pre-school demands, so it's almost fortunate the spare capacity is there but I'm fully expecting something to need overhauled before it actually opened because the unused equipment is out of date. It's currently one of the most expensive storage rooms in the county.
A double amputee told by the Department for Work and Pensions that he was “fit for work” as he could “climb stairs with his arms” has won an appeal against the judgement.
Julius Holgate, from Hackney, London, was told by government officials that because his arms were in working order he could use them to “climb” stairs and have “mobility”.
The decision caused Holgate to fall into debt and even pawn jewellery to access funds after a medical assessment gave him zero points towards accessing an Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
He told The Huffington Post UK: “The government needs to stop using these private companies. They are no good. They have targets and they miss stuff. If someone can walk two or three steps it does not mean they can work. It is wrong.
“Over sixty percent of cases [that go to court] are overturned. For people like Julius they might struggle to find the money to do it.
“We would like to see the government restore legal aid as there are now a whole range of problems for people on benefits who suffer because they can’t receive legal aid.”
Last year, the DWP caused controversy when it declared a man with half a skull was “fit for work”.
Kenny Bailey, who has trouble walking and needs assistance to get dressed, underwent an individual assessment requested by the Department of Work and Pensions.
They deemed him able to work despite him being paralysed down his left side and suffering from memory problems.
Bailey later had his benefits reinstated after the decision was overturned following media coverage of his case.
Apparently they have a target for 80% rejection rate too.
It's a total embarassment. It's only a Tory ideology that'd have us in a situation where we spend more money to shaft the disabled than if we just gave them what they were asking for. It's totally stacked against them in every concievable way.
There really should be serious sanctions for ATOS for each case overturned at appeal.
Donald Tusk suggests No Brexit is still an option:
European council president suggests Brexit could be halted
Donald Tusk, the European council president, told the European parliament this morning that it was up to the UK how Brexit ended. Giving MEPs an update on the EU summit he also suggested that Britain remaining in the EU (“no Brexit”) was still a possible outcome. He told them:
Ahead of us is still the toughest stress test. If we fail it, the negotiations will end in our defeat.
We must keep our unity regardless of the direction of the talks. The EU will be able to rise to every scenario as long as we are not divided.
It is in fact up to London how this will end: With a good deal, no deal or no Brexit.
But in each of these scenarios we will protect our common interest only by being together.
He's right from a procedural angle, however I doubt the Tory Party could withstand such a change of direction without exploding into burning fragments, so I expect May to force it through regardless.
r_squared wrote: For every claim of a bloated public sector, I can point to terrible, inefficient service provided by the private sector to the public sector. Bid low, undercut ruthlessly and provide shoddy, sub-standard services whilst piling on the costs afterwards.
Serco, Annington Homes, Carrollion Amey etc have all bid for and acquired juicy govt contracts that they pump the tax payer for. I've had the displeasure of having to work alongside these companies, and their workers are for the most part, disinterested, complacent and unhelpful thanks to poor pay and conditions and unrealistic demands.
The private sector just does not work in these circumstances.
The problem is ideology and unwillingness to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The problem here is that it is the client body the tenders and writes the contracts; why are they not drafted correctly? Why are they not being administered correctly?
I contract all of my work out; in all cases I define performance criteria, quality, programme and importantly remedy/penalties for breach of the contract. I can do that easily enough with out loss or recourse to the courts why can't civil servants?
From my experience it's because they are no more motivated that the Service Sector slobs you mention.
I don't think it's as simple as to say Civil Service Good, Two Legs Bad.
However I will say that over the past 30 years, the quality of the Civil Service has been eroded by successive governments, starting with Maggie of course, who ideologically disliked public services and tried with a good deal of success to shift power and responsibility to private companies employed by the government, thus demotivating civil servants.
Of course it's plain to see there is plenty of bad management and incompetence in private industry too. The main difference is that private companies can go bust if they fail badly enough, except of course if they are major banks, which get bailed out by the government (i.e. you and me.)
notprop wrote: Bearing I mind the buying power Gvt agencies have it always puzzles me how they can constant feth up buying stuff so often and so badly?
In my experience it's a mixture of incompetence, nepotism and bribery. Case in point, our council has just started buying Mercedes lorries fitted with Zoeller lifters instead of the tried and tested Dennis lorries fitted with Terburg lifters that they've been using for decades. The Mercs are god awful, and the Zoeller lifters even more so. They're not even cheaper, so that excuse won't work.
So why buy them? Because the executive who went out to buy them (without any input from either the transport managers or drivers) thought 'oh wow, Mercedes make lorries! I drive a Mercedes! These are so cool, we have to have them!' Why would they think that, and why do they even have this position? Because they're an incompetent under educated dim wit who just happen to be the wife of the council head's band mate (in the Orange Order). Add in the very real possibility of a 'bung' to make sure they buy these mercs and Dennis never stood a chance.
This is just belfast though. I don't think things would be as bad in the rest of the UK. Or at least I hope not.
Actually, this sounds eerily familiar. Pretty sure this kind of thing happens everywhere across Europe.
notprop wrote: It probably was a tender, but these things are easily swayed.
Not if it was done properly, and it's way more complicated to do it that for a private company.
Private purchases are indeed easily swayed. I should know that since I work in sales. Personal relationship with the buyer is often one key component on whether one buys from you or the competition, and gifts/tickets for football or F1/private travels, etc. are also part of the equation.
Dealing with both the private and public sector I can tell you its several orders of magnitude more difficult to play dirty to put it that way in public purchases than private. And when it happens, and people get caught they lose their job and even go to jail. In the private sector..... well, it's just another day at the office.
Agreed, a procurement done correctly is almost impossible to be swayed by an individuals will regardless of who they are, especially when you consider the higher value procurements. That is not to say there isn't corruption of course, there will always will be regardless. We are more aware of incidents in the public sector because of the controls that are put in place to find it and root it out. However this is a double edged sword, it both makes it less likely but at the same time more in the public eye. There is vastly less controls and checks on the private sector (and you can even argument on government - lest we forget dinners with oil owners by certain MPs etc). As such they come to light a lot less often. I imagine that if the same controls were applied to businesses then more corruption would come to light - a gift of a seat in an executive box at a football club for a match is OK in business but not for Council employees. Most businesses likely fire employees acting corruptly or quietly pay them off, it is rare that they come to light (e.g. Rolls Royce) I would suggest.
The problem for Council's is for every one exposed there are hundreds if not thousands of contracts that are not enacted as part of a corruption scandal, but we only hear about the bad eggs because that makes news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: That one I think I can take a guess at.
Civil Service and Government departments will send a couple of civil servants, earning maybe 35k a year into meetings with companies carrying teams of lawyers and negotiators earning 6 figure salaries, each.
And any rising talents or the type who are genuinely good at that sort of thing? They'll eventually end up getting ground down by the other 'stuff' that comes with working for the civil service and end up becoming one of those 6 figure salary people themselves.
There is a lot to this. Councils are finding it increasingly difficult to hire the staff they want/need. Pay is declining, the benefits that were there to offset the lower pay have gone. There's no real reason for younger talent to stick around rather than go to the private sector. As such that inevitably means the quality you look for from a Council or government department is going to decline. If they can't find the staff then they are forced to hire consultants in specialist areas where the number are few and you can see why there is an escalating cycle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: I've spent 20 years directly building circa £500m of schools, military installations, health facilities, LA housing and Infrastructure.
There's always lots of money but sensible spending and competent management, not so much.
Capital projects are easier in some ways than service contracts. As long as you have the design correct then any performance controls are 'relatively' simple. It's not so simple when it is dealing with day to day operations where individual circumstances can throw a spanner in the works. The difficulty is when all those spanners add up to a big issue. You still have to provide a service regardless of how awkward the contractor is being, those bins still need collecting etc. You can't simply walk away and ask someone else to do it. That's not to say there are not bad contracts out there, but service has more factors to consider because of the public facing element of most of them.
In the private sector dinners, Christmas wine, event tickets etc are bread and butter for purchasing.
Public sector you can lose your job for accepting a bottle of wine at Christmas (this is not hyperbola). The office I used to work in at the council got a case of 6 bottles of wine every year. It was recorded and then raffled for charity, which was also recorded, until my boss was told that was unacceptable and we now had to refuse them in future.
I work for a private company and we've got very strict rules about what we can/can't accept, but it's a totally different level in the public section - you can't open the door for any claim of bribery or bias.
notprop wrote: I've spent 20 years directly building circa £500m of schools, military installations, health facilities, LA housing and Infrastructure.
There's always lots of money but sensible spending and competent management, not so much.
I'm sorry, but you're a builder. Therefore an expert in your particular profession and are being critical of teachers not being able to fully understand the exact requirements of your particular role, so that contract are written ineffectively?
PFIs are just one part of the problem, but the main problem is, as alluded to in this article is contractual inflexibility. It is the one area where dealings with the private sector falls down every single time. The private sector demands exact details in its contracts, but by the very nature of public service the full details are not always know. Writing in flexibility increases contract cost exorbitantly and honest mistakes can be made which can cost huge sums.
For example, a private contractor is hired to provide airfield services which include grass cutting. This is not as straightforward or as simple as it sounds because there are very tight rules and regulations about types of grass and lengths in specific areas as they are know to interfere with sensitive equipment and provide habitats for birds. It must be carefully and rigorously controlled. A mistake had been made by one individual, and it leads to some equipment being made unavailable due to interference. The mistake was as simple as the area of shorter grass around the equipment being of the wrong radius. In order to get this simple mistake rectified, the contract had to be re-written costing in excess of £200k. Until then, the contractor refused to even consider performing the task to the correct specification, because it wasn't in the contract, so valuable equipment is unavailable and the tax payer picks up a huge cash bill because of a mistake and rigid corporate inflexibility.
That was one example of the many many times I came across such attitudes. The contractor knows, and profits from hugely any mistakes, so it benefits them to rigidly stick to their contract regardless. I was always taught that flexibility is the key to air power, and it is, but the key to financial enrichment is inflexibility.
If business are inflexible because of costs, and are unwilling to enter into lucrative government contracts and be willing to work alongside the public management, then we should look to dispense with their services altogether and provide it ourselves. It's cheaper, more flexible, and cost effective in the long run. These companies are not running on wafer thin profit margins here. Govt and council projects are a goldmine for them, they should be made to really work hard for the money they get, and we simply do not do that.
Steve steveson wrote: In the private sector dinners, Christmas wine, event tickets etc are bread and butter for purchasing.
Public sector you can lose your job for accepting a bottle of wine at Christmas (this is not hyperbola). The office I used to work in at the council got a case of 6 bottles of wine every year. It was recorded and then raffled for charity, which was also recorded, until my boss was told that was unacceptable and we now had to refuse them in future.
I work for somewhere in the middle. Like the Bendu to the Jedi and the Sith.
We have to declare all hospitality of any kind. Doesn't matter what it is, has to be properly declared. I think it's mostly so we can rat on anyone trying to bribe us.
From what I've seen in the public sector, if you're an underling on the take you can expect to be squashed like a bug. If you're a manager or worse, a county councillor, unless what you do is particularly egregious, you get quietly pushed out the back with minimal fuss and public attention. They don't want the public thinking that councillors and managers in public services are crooked. A bit like you don't get many bank managers publicly busted but a cashier that takes a few quid can expect to be smashed.
I've seen it over and over, senior staff on the take that resigned, paid a bit back and never faced any charges of any sort. This is what I've seen happen to one of my head teachers, head of IT dept at local authority, Treasurer and his deputy at uni, a deputy head teacher at another school. Everywhere I've worked, almost. All self profiting from giving themselves freebies or straight up stealing. The first head teacher used school money to decorate his home, but the records were such a mess he paid back about six month's losses, the rest was written off. The IT manager filled his basement with computers, printers and TVs and claimed they were for 'working from home'.
Or a UK tourism boom has nothing to do with the low value of the £. It's good that we're technically up, though all the coverage I've seen shows concerned outlooks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What do people make of this:
1st press response was that he was working in a personal capacity as MP, not HoC. His follow up reply after a suitable delay is that he's looking for research material for a book he's writing.
Yeah, the UK economy ain't perfect, but we're not doing an Oliver Twist impression as some would have us believe
We're about where we were 10 years ago, our growth rate is less than all the other developed nations, our productivity is shot to crap, and wage growth versus inflation is negative for many people.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I've seen it over and over, senior staff on the take that resigned, paid a bit back and never faced any charges of any sort. This is what I've seen happen to one of my head teachers, head of IT dept at local authority, Treasurer and his deputy at uni, a deputy head teacher at another school. Everywhere I've worked, almost. All self profiting from giving themselves freebies or straight up stealing. The first head teacher used school money to decorate his home, but the records were such a mess he paid back about six month's losses, the rest was written off. The IT manager filled his basement with computers, printers and TVs and claimed they were for 'working from home'.
You are confusing 'theft' with 'corruption' here. These are examples where an employee is taking something from the employer that has been purchased for the organisation. You are always going to have individuals steal goods, that has been around since well we were not human.
Corruption is a completely different thing. It is where an organisation is offering an incentive to be thought of in higher regards or be given favourable terms/contracts and hence earning the company significant amounts of money. It takes two parties for corruption to occur, both the company/individual offering the incentive and the company/organisation/individual to accept it. It's not theft per se because the company offering something is given freely. In these discussions we are only hearing about the Council/managers/Councillors being 'on the take' but in fact there is another side that is just as bad (but they get quietly forgotten about in the press).
Yeah, the UK economy ain't perfect, but we're not doing an Oliver Twist impression as some would have us believe
The important thing is to compare it how other nations are doing. Looking at things in isolation can make things look better and worse than they really are. If our growth is 0.4% and everyone else's is 10% then we are falling way behind and relatively we are doing a lot worse. So this is how things compare
To put it bluntly we are doing badly. In the second quarter of this year we are the worst but one performing economy of the stated nations with only Brazil doing worse than us. Even a 0.4% only takes us above one other country. Out growth is half that of what the EU is achieving, a third of what G20 nations are doing. Therefore relatively we are falling behind. If it continues (and most models predict it will because of our poor output) then things will steadily get worse compared to other nations. You may have growth but that's nothing if it is tiny compared to what others are achieving.
Tourism is doing well in the UK because incomes are declining in real terms. It makes day trips more viable because the one week/two week holidays abroad are too expensive. However it does have an effect elsewhere...tell former Monarch employees how well tourism is doing and you might get laughed at (or thrown out the pub). Conversely for other countries tourists exploiting the weak £ does bring more money in, but we are not a nation where we can rely on tourism. It accounts for only 7% of GDP and hence tourism needs to triple in GDP if we are to rely on it.
It is also worth reading how well some other industries are coping with the fallout from the vote
Here we can see that apart from wine/gin/salmon/cheese our total exports of our main food products are going down because less people are willing to come here to work (and despite everything said during Wrexit the UK populace still don't want to do these jobs). However the value has gone up so it's reduced the trade deficit (but conversely that means our on prices go up increasing inflation). It is also worth noting that despite leaving we have increased the share of products going to the EU which will make any sort of hard Wrexit even more difficult to swallow.
Herzlos wrote: Or a UK tourism boom has nothing to do with the low value of the £. It's good that we're technically up, though all the coverage I've seen shows concerned outlooks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What do people make of this:
1st press response was that he was working in a personal capacity as MP, not HoC. His follow up reply after a suitable delay is that he's looking for research material for a book he's writing.
The reason for this is on the front page of the Daily Mail this morning - 'Our Remainer Universities'
" ... yesterday The Mail uncovered a string of examples of senior figures at universities explicitly speaking out in favour of Remain"
Speaking their minds. Those traitorous swine. That's why we need their names. They should be made to wear little badges or something, so we can clearly see who they are, if we need to find them, for any reason.
As I type, an entire legion of Dacres best rats are searching internet histories, going through bins, chucking £10K at ex lovers for anything salacious. So proud to be British.
At least they weren't branded traitors or "enemies of the people" this time.
I haven't been able to find much reaction from the universities yet; one telling quoting churchill telling him to feth off, and another one telling him to do his own research. Have any others surfaced?
Herzlos wrote: Or a UK tourism boom has nothing to do with the low value of the £. It's good that we're technically up, though all the coverage I've seen shows concerned outlooks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What do people make of this:
1st press response was that he was working in a personal capacity as MP, not HoC. His follow up reply after a suitable delay is that he's looking for research material for a book he's writing.
Yeah, the UK economy ain't perfect, but we're not doing an Oliver Twist impression as some would have us believe
The important thing is to compare it how other nations are doing. Looking at things in isolation can make things look better and worse than they really are. If our growth is 0.4% and everyone else's is 10% then we are falling way behind and relatively we are doing a lot worse. So this is how things compare
Plus brexit hasn't happened. Let's see how well UK does when they lose access to single market and bank's lose their banking passport
There were several on PM on R4 on Tuesday, generally decrying another lurch down the road to Rees-Moggland. But Andrea Leadsom said it was all perfectly fine, so that's ok.
If I was a lecturer, I would be at least slightly concerned that the attentions of one of the most viciously unpleasant people in the realm was focussed on me and mine.
On the other hand, this is all just a big storm in a teacup, perfectly innocent, and, let me be clear, we should just be getting on with the job of Brexit, standing proud and British, like Henry VIII when he defeated the Spanish panzers at Agincourt.
From what I read, the MP in question was getting annoyed because his daughter's engineering lecturer was physically handing out literature opposing Brexit and ranting about it in class (instead of teaching engineering). So there is some basis for his motivations beyond the 'Root out the non-believers schpiel' a lot of people are sarcastically pushing.
On the other hand, what a lecturer chooses to say in his class is up to him, and if the students disagree with it or want him to get on with things, it's up to the students to talk to him or the course convenor. Mr 'I want to control what my daughter's lecturers talk about' needs to bugger off.
My brother works at the University of Oregon in Eugene as an administrator. He spends a lot of time telling parents that the university has no legal right to discuss students' personal and academic affairs with their parents.
At the same time as a parent of an 18-year-old myself, I completely understand why someone would be concerned about their child's well-being at university.
That said, the MP in question didn't try to speak to the lecturer involved, or the head of the faculty, he made a general fishing trip out of it, which is what creates the bad impression, compounded by this feeble excuse about wanting to write a book. If that were true, he might have done better to open his letter with a statement about the purpose of his enquiry.
Kilkrazy wrote: My brother works at the University of Oregon in Eugene as an administrator. He spends a lot of time telling parents that the university has no legal right to discuss students' personal and academic affairs with their parents.
At the same time as a parent of an 18-year-old myself, I completely understand why someone would be concerned about their child's well-being at university.
That said, the MP in question didn't try to speak to the lecturer involved, or the head of the faculty, he made a general fishing trip out of it, which is what creates the bad impression, compounded by this feeble excuse about wanting to write a book. If that were true, he might have done better to open his letter with a statement about the purpose of his enquiry.
Aye. It was a stupid and overly controlling thing to do, and they're completely correct in throwing it back in his face.
So when is the pound going to drop so I can by me some Forge World? I thought that the UK telling Europe to feth itself (very British btw) was supposed to have already brought both the doom and the gloom.
Ketara wrote: From what I read, the MP in question was getting annoyed because his daughter's engineering lecturer was physically handing out literature opposing Brexit and ranting about it in class (instead of teaching engineering). So there is some basis for his motivations beyond the 'Root out the non-believers schpiel' a lot of people are sarcastically pushing.
That was a different MP standing up for the first one. All we have is a photo of an anti-brexit flyer that was handed out during an engineering lecture. Maybe the lecturer did go overboard and maybe it had some impact on the unniversity - it's possible the engineering department relies on EU generated funds and brexit has put the course at risk in some way.
Anyway, this guy wouldn't have been picked up by the suspicious fishing trip, since he asked about lecturers with material on brexit, and this was someone mentioning brexit in another lecture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: So when is the pound going to drop so I can by me some Forge World? I thought that the UK telling Europe to feth itself (very British btw) was supposed to have already brought both the doom and the gloom.
It's probably not going to drop any further for a while. Maybe if we don't progress out of the early stages of talks in December it'll dip a bit, but it's unlikely to really tank unless we leave in 2019 with no deal.
You're probably as well getting what you can now, as a massive drop in the £ will probably put FW's prices up, since I assume the resin is imported from somewhere.
For some political balance, someone who was seated next to Tory MP Sir Alan Duncan at a function recently asked the right honourable gentleman for his opinion on Theresa May, his party's beleaguered leader.
Hoping that he'd spill a little something juicy, they were disappointed to hear Duncan diplomatically explain the various issues he had with her style of leadership, her lack of core ideology and her unending dependence on bad advisors.
So they asked him for his opinion on Boris Johnson instead.
Arrested on terrorism charges for owning part of "The Anarchists Cook Book"? Gakking hell.
Even more worrying is the gagging orders about it:
He also discussed for the first time the British government’s charges against him, which have not previously been publicized due to court-ordered reporting restrictions that have prevented news organizations in the U.K. from disclosing information about the background of his case. A judge lifted the restrictions late last month.
Is there actually anything illegal about volunteering in a foreign defence militia? Some kind of travel/visa violation, maybe?
Fighting for ISIS I can understand, it's a terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for attacks in Europe, but fighting against ISIS? I'm pretty sure we're not classing the YPG as a terrorist organisation?
On a more abstract, theoretical level you don't have the right to go fight private wars, even for the best of intentions. The state has a monopoly on violence other than in immediate self-defence; that doesn't stop just because the cause you're fighting for is perceived as righteous. This person is clearly willing to ignore the democratic process and decide that he has the right to wage private wars. That's all well and good when he's fighting someone like ISIS, but once ISIS is dead how can we be sure he doesn't decide to do the same to someone we don't hate?
Part of being part of a democratic society is to accept decisions you don't like. The UK has chosen not to send armed forces to fight ISIS (other than special operatives). This man has chosen to disregard this democratic process. That cannot be allowed to stand.
Brexit chief David Davis made reference to Holland and Czechoslovakia as EU countries as he boasted of his team’s European knowledge.
It happened as Davis, who is leading the UK’s exit from Brussels, was speaking to MPs in London about the progress of negotiations.
Asked what would happen if a deal with the EU was left until the last minute, he suggested Britain would be in a strong position because its diplomats knew what each member state wanted from the final agreement.
“If the experience to date is anything to go by we’ll have a pretty good idea of where their end game is,” he told MPs
“We’ve got a pretty good idea of what the economic interests are of every single member state.
“They are not focussing on [the negotiations] all the time.
“Germany, Austria, Holland and Czechoslovakia are all without governments at the moment so this is not top of their tree.
“Nevertheless we’ve got a pretty good idea of where they will end up at the end of this, even if there are delays on the way.”
Ketara wrote: From what I read, the MP in question was getting annoyed because his daughter's engineering lecturer was physically handing out literature opposing Brexit and ranting about it in class (instead of teaching engineering). So there is some basis for his motivations beyond the 'Root out the non-believers schpiel' a lot of people are sarcastically pushing.
On the other hand, what a lecturer chooses to say in his class is up to him, and if the students disagree with it or want him to get on with things, it's up to the students to talk to him or the course convenor. Mr 'I want to control what my daughter's lecturers talk about' needs to bugger off.
Yeah I think it might have been a different MP rather than the one researching his book of people for the chopping block.
However I would have liked to have seen the leaflet in question and heard more about the 'rant'. For example the university might have EU work placements under some scheme and that this might all be up in the air because of Wrexit. Therefore the leaflet might have been explaining why the students were not getting a work placement in an engineering company in southern France but instead were getting posted to picking Brussel Sprouts for the Tory party Christmas lunch (not that you really need anymore total sprouts at such a meal).
I can imagine the conversation now. "Hi Dad, we had a lecture today and explained why everything you say is a complete bag of [insert expletive]. I have got to say I totally agree with them"; might not have gone down well....
Brexit chief David Davis made reference to Holland and Czechoslovakia as EU countries as he boasted of his team’s European knowledge.
It happened as Davis, who is leading the UK’s exit from Brussels, was speaking to MPs in London about the progress of negotiations.
Asked what would happen if a deal with the EU was left until the last minute, he suggested Britain would be in a strong position because its diplomats knew what each member state wanted from the final agreement.
“If the experience to date is anything to go by we’ll have a pretty good idea of where their end game is,” he told MPs
“We’ve got a pretty good idea of what the economic interests are of every single member state.
“They are not focussing on [the negotiations] all the time.
“Germany, Austria, Holland and Czechoslovakia are all without governments at the moment so this is not top of their tree.
“Nevertheless we’ve got a pretty good idea of where they will end up at the end of this, even if there are delays on the way.”
Yep I can predict what Czechoslovakia position will be on Wrexit as well. You've got to wonder about what intelligence they are getting...and even what intelligence there is between those two ears.
On the other hand it does shine a light on what the UK are trying to do in the negotiations which is effectively divide and conquer. It also explains Tusk warning. The EU obviously can see this is what the UK is up to. Of course if it is that blatantly obvious its never going to work anyway (but it also runs the risk of talks breaking down completely).
Yeah, the UK economy ain't perfect, but we're not doing an Oliver Twist impression as some would have us believe
The important thing is to compare it how other nations are doing. Looking at things in isolation can make things look better and worse than they really are. If our growth is 0.4% and everyone else's is 10% then we are falling way behind and relatively we are doing a lot worse. So this is how things compare
Plus brexit hasn't happened. Let's see how well UK does when they lose access to single market and bank's lose their banking passport
That's the common message these days. If something goes wrong in Britain, it's because of Brexit. If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened. Well it won't work on me
I'm also hearing it's not just cash that the UK is entitled to from the divorce, but physical assets as well.
I fully expect Her Majesty's Government to send the removal vans to Brussels and get them to load up with office equipment, laptops, vending machines, stationery etc etc and bring it back to the people who paid for it i.e people like me!
And it's not going to prop up our ailing and failing economy, assuming it doesn't just get absorbed by Tory Donors through further tax breaks.
I don't expect 10 billion to bail out the economy, but that 10 billion could pay for upgrades at Dover, or a new IT system for customs, or 10,000 new border staff etc etc
More likely it’ll be wiped out by any drop in the pound before it can offset anything. It’s small potatoes, there’s bigger money elsewhere.
The way our ‘obligations’ to the EU seem so difficult to pin down and seem so open to negotiation as to be meaningless. It’s whatever each side can bamboozle and strong arm out of the other. Further, that the assets we’ve paid into we’re told we have no share in. Apparently once investment goes in it becomes owned by Brussels yet something the 28 members don’t somehow have a share of. While we have made agreements to the value of billions which likely have to be repaid, the EU has billions of investments in cash, property, loans, etc, which our net contributions I’ve many years have undoubtedly helped establish. But we’re told we have no share of them.
I heard that interview while driving to work. I thought it was sadly amusing that the EU is planning 25 years ahead while the UK sadly is failing to plan 2 years ahead.
As far as getting the money back, obviously the EU can scrape up £10 Bn from somewhere if they want to, but why should they rush to do it when it's us who've suddenly decided to stomp off in a huff, leaving the bank in the lurch?
At the risk of being otiose, we wouldn't need to be scraping around for £10 Bn for new border guards at Dover Customs if we stayed in the EU.
Ehm, that's how an investment works. You invest your money in something in order to get advantages for yourself from it. Sometimes the investment fails and you lose your money. You can't just retroactively decide you'd rather have had your money after all.
If it's not in black and white, then we're going to have a hard time getting them to pay any of it to us, especially if we're being difficult about the money we owe them.
Just because we paid in doesn't we're entitled to any of it back - if I chipped in money for a golf clubs clubhouse and then left the club, I wouldn't be entitled to a share of it.
As said, we should be using it as a deduction of the divorce bill, once our Brexit team can tell their arse from their elbow.
That's the common message these days. If something goes wrong in Britain, it's because of Brexit. If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened. Well it won't work on me
Because it's true, maybe? bad things have happened as direct result of Brexit - the £ tanking, loss of investment and stability, wavering economy.
Anything happening now is still happening in the EU, so if it's good it's likely to be independent of brexit or despite of brexit - things are still working.
I've yet to hear of anything good happening because of Brexit (like investing in the UK because of it), because, I assume (a) no-one knows what the gak it is yet, (b) We can't take advantage of most of the freedom until we've left and (c) I genuinely disagree that most of the good things about Brexit are actually good.
The EU expects us to hand over money at warp speed, but we'll need a crowbar and TNT to prise our cash from Juncker's hand, if I know Brussels
Did you read why the bank is talking about spending 30 years to pay it back? It's because while we own 18% of the value of the bank, it's all paid out in loans, so we can only get it back as the loan is being repaid. Presumably we'll be getting it back pro-rata - so 18% of (repayments - overheads) will trickle back to us.
It's not as if they are sitting on a mountain of cash and just trying to be gakkers about it.
"the economic facts are just such that there are no winners in Brexit"
Herzlos wrote: Do we have any contractual ownership of them?
It seems like none of this was made clear cut as it was assumed no one would actually use article 50 to leave the EU. Now both sides are trying to decide what all these agreements actually mean years after signing them.
I don’t think the ‘clubhouse’ example work because a golf club exists as a privately owned body into which people pay to be members, it has established assets of its own before opening to members. You don’t own a section of the green because you joined for a few years. The EU exists entirely because of the members contributions. If a group of people come together to form a company and all pitch in money to start a project, and one leaves, you can’t reasonably say that all the assets belong to ‘the company’, and the individual members themselves have no share of that, it has assets only because they invested into it.
A clubhouse can be created by a group of founding members though - it doesn't need to be funded independently.
Say I + 99 other golfers use a course with no clubhouse, and we all decide to chip in to build a clubhouse, £10k each for a £1m building, once it's built the clubhouse has it's own accounts, incomes etc but all members get the appropriate benefit out of it (use of the clubhouse). I then decide I want to leave, but that doesn't mean I'd get my £10k + interest back.
if we'd chipped in £10k each to buy shares in a clubhouse, then I'd have been entitled to sell my 1% of shares to someone when I left, but again I couldn't expect the club to buy those shares off me just because I left; I'd need someone else willing to buy them.
Anyway, picking apart the analogy (which we all do) doesn't defeat the point - just because we paid money in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it back.
The EIB is different, because we actually own 18% of the fund, and are entitled to getting it back as it is amortized.
Kilkrazy wrote: I heard that interview while driving to work. I thought it was sadly amusing that the EU is planning 25 years ahead while the UK sadly is failing to plan 2 years ahead.
As far as getting the money back, obviously the EU can scrape up £10 Bn from somewhere if they want to, but why should they rush to do it when it's us who've suddenly decided to stomp off in a huff, leaving the bank in the lurch?
At the risk of being otiose, we wouldn't need to be scraping around for £10 Bn for new border guards at Dover Customs if we stayed in the EU.
This year's budget is shaping up to be a doozy.
I've seen the EU's 25 plan, as laid out by Macron and Juncker, and I don't like what I heard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ehm, that's how an investment works. You invest your money in something in order to get advantages for yourself from it. Sometimes the investment fails and you lose your money. You can't just retroactively decide you'd rather have had your money after all.
Kilkrazy wrote: I heard that interview while driving to work. I thought it was sadly amusing that the EU is planning 25 years ahead while the UK sadly is failing to plan 2 years ahead.
As far as getting the money back, obviously the EU can scrape up £10 Bn from somewhere if they want to, but why should they rush to do it when it's us who've suddenly decided to stomp off in a huff, leaving the bank in the lurch?
At the risk of being otiose, we wouldn't need to be scraping around for £10 Bn for new border guards at Dover Customs if we stayed in the EU.
This year's budget is shaping up to be a doozy.
I've seen the EU's 25 plan, as laid out by Macron and Juncker, and I don't like what I heard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ehm, that's how an investment works. You invest your money in something in order to get advantages for yourself from it. Sometimes the investment fails and you lose your money. You can't just retroactively decide you'd rather have had your money after all.
I'd like that investment back.
You don't like anything the EU does or doesn't do, so that's hardly a surprise.
I am disappoint that you oppose EU funding for social housing projects, though. Our own government has been a conspicuous failure in this area of policy, which is a source of great trouble and distress to the younger generation.
I'm not blaming Dakka members for this, but ever since the Brexit talks happened, a lot of Remain supporters have smugly asserted that all the woes will be on the UK, and the EU can sail on serenely, as though the Brexit talks were occurring in a bubble.
I say this, because the EU has a Catalonia shaped problem heading its way. The end result could be that the EU moves to get Brexit done and dusted ASAP. Who knows?
And I'll finish by repeating one of my favourite quotes: "a week is a long time in politics."
It would be foolish for either side in the Brexit negotiations to predict what 2019 will look like.
@Kilkrazy. In reply to your earlier point, the EU are bribing us with our own money
Brexit isn't I'm most eu countries top 5 concerns. They don't care when it happens.
I don't think anyone has said brexit will be painless for the eu, just that it'll be an order of magnitude less painful for them than us.
I'll keep asking this until I get an answer; if Britain is willing to take a big hit for ideological reasons, why wouldn't the eu be prepared to take a small hit for ideological reasons?
The brexiteers narrative seems to relovolve around the eu having to give us a good deal because reasons.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'd like that investment back.
Thats not how it works.
I'd like my gym membership back for the year I didn't use it. It ain't gonna happen
I'd like my gym membership back for the year I didn't use it. It ain't gonna happen
I presume you had a proper legal agreement in place with your gym, and that both parties (you and the gym) knew the score.
There is no such agreement with the EU, because nobody expected A50 to be activated. It was a sham from start to finish. Ergo, both sides could come to whatever agreement they want. Therefore, we might actually get that cash back.
Pretty sure they're not terribly fussed if we cut off our nose to spite our face....
Remember. They hold all the cards. All. Of. Them.
Catalonia's UDI could send unexpected shock waves through Europe. All I'm saying is that it would be foolish to think that absolutely nothing will go wrong for the EU from now until 2020. Or Britain for that matter.
We don't exist in a vacuum. A major terrorist attack, North Korea invading South Korea, Trump resigning, Russian problems in the Baltic, etc etc
any unexpected event could change the whole dynamic of the Brexit talks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, well, well, well, well. Looks like the EU owes Britain a wad of cash, and we'll be having that back, thank you very much:
Why should this be a surprise? We've invested into the EU since the 1970s and the EIB has been going since the 1950s. Stupidly it is a bank so you would actually be better leaving the money in there and continue to invest in it as the return will pay back the investment. However it has 'European' at the beginning of it and that it is like a red rag regardless of how sensible the idea is for the UK. I feel sorry for the music band Europe, they are probably getting hate mail in the thousands each day simply because of their name...
As already noted it is likely this will be offset against any final EU 'bill' if the UK government in their idiocy thinks it is a good idea to get out sooner rather than later (and hence cut short the investment).
That's the common message these days. If something goes wrong in Britain, it's because of Brexit. If something good happens, it's because Brexit hasn't happened. Well it won't work on me
I see exaggeration is the byword then. I don't think anyone blames the Wrexit for any of these...
On the other hand issues with the economy, declining relative wages, increased costs for import etc etc are a direct impact from Wrexit. I think it is more some Brexiters prefer to deny that the bad things are happening, possible and were predicted. At least some are sensible and just say they don't care how much damage it will do (at least acknowledging there will be lots).
You're not suggesting that 10 billion couldn't pay for a few thousand new border staff, or something similar? I may disagree with you a lot, but I refuse to believe that you believe that!
I'd like my gym membership back for the year I didn't use it. It ain't gonna happen
I presume you had a proper legal agreement in place with your gym, and that both parties (you and the gym) knew the score.
There is no such agreement with the EU, because nobody expected A50 to be activated. It was a sham from start to finish. Ergo, both sides could come to whatever agreement they want. Therefore, we might actually get that cash back.
I did. So did we. It just doesn't contain a clause on who gets what if anyone is stupid enough to leave. But that doesn't give us care blanche to interpret that to mean what we want; we need to negotiate it with the EU.
You're not suggesting that 10 billion couldn't pay for a few thousand new border staff, or something similar? I may disagree with you a lot, but I refuse to believe that you believe that!
It'd pay for about 250,000 staff for a year, assuming £20k salary.
Pretty sure they're not terribly fussed if we cut off our nose to spite our face....
Remember. They hold all the cards. All. Of. Them.
Catalonia's UDI could send unexpected shock waves through Europe. All I'm saying is that it would be foolish to think that absolutely nothing will go wrong for the EU from now until 2020. Or Britain for that matter.
We don't exist in a vacuum. A major terrorist attack, North Korea invading South Korea, Trump resigning, Russian problems in the Baltic, etc etc
any unexpected event could change the whole dynamic of the Brexit talks.
Indeed they could, and Europe is far more concerned about those things than us taking our ball home. What events do you see that'll get us more bargaining power?
You're not suggesting that 10 billion couldn't pay for a few thousand new border staff, or something similar? I may disagree with you a lot, but I refuse to believe that you believe that!
The problem is you are out by more than an order of magnitude which suggests a lack of grasp of numbers at this size and what it can and cannot mean. Assuming a £20000 gross wage per border employee, 10billion (which I assume 1x10^10 as the standard term not the old UK billion, which would 1x10^13) gets you 500,000 employees not 10,000!
Honestly, it's not like DINLT said all 10 billion were to be spent on border guards, hence the "etc. etc. etc.". I think it's perfectly clear from his post that such border guards were just one thing of many that the 10 billion could pay for.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, it's not like DINLT said all 10 billion were to be spent on border guards, hence the "etc. etc. etc.". I think it's perfectly clear from his post that such border guards were just one thing of many that the 10 billion could pay for.
Actually he did because of the way that it was worded.
I don't expect 10 billion to bail out the economy, but that 10 billion could pay for upgrades at Dover, or a new IT system for customs, or 10,000 new border staff etc etc
by using the terminology 'or' that means one or the other (otherwise the sentence should have used 'and' (e.g hot 'or' cold, this 'or that' etc).
Herzlos wrote: To be fair, it could be used exclusively for guards, that'd fund them for about 59 years - long after we've rejoined the eu
That's true. However I highly doubt DINLT was considering that within the post. What I'm really pointing out though is that the concept of billion's etc can be lost on many because of the scale. It effectively amounts to 'a lot' without a real concept of how big that number really. That's mostly because we live in a world of small numbers (so 1 vs 1000). The concept of 1000 £1s is easy to grasp whereas a 10000 million much less so and is not really understood until brought into more 'practical' concepts (generally people's perspective as to what they think a billion is a lot less than what it really is). What it means that, for example, when people argue that they don't worry about billions or trillions of £s worth of damage to the economy coming from Wrexit their concept of the actual value is less than what it really is and hence easier to dismiss.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, it's not like DINLT said all 10 billion were to be spent on border guards, hence the "etc. etc. etc.". I think it's perfectly clear from his post that such border guards were just one thing of many that the 10 billion could pay for.
We rarely agree on anything, but thanks for the back up
Herzlos wrote: To be fair, it could be used exclusively for guards, that'd fund them for about 59 years - long after we've rejoined the eu
That's true. However I highly doubt DINLT was considering that within the post. What I'm really pointing out though is that the concept of billion's etc can be lost on many because of the scale. It effectively amounts to 'a lot' without a real concept of how big that number really. That's mostly because we live in a world of small numbers (so 1 vs 1000). The concept of 1000 £1s is easy to grasp whereas a 10000 million much less so and is not really understood until brought into more 'practical' concepts (generally people's perspective as to what they think a billion is a lot less than what it really is). What it means that, for example, when people argue that they don't worry about billions or trillions of £s worth of damage to the economy coming from Wrexit their concept of the actual value is less than what it really is and hence easier to dismiss.
I was throwing general ideas into the mix with my comments about border staff.
The point I was trying to make that the money should come home, and be spent on whatever our parliament sees fit, be it border staff, the NHS, or giving every UK household a 6 pack of salt and vinegar crisps!
What the cash is spent on is not the issue - it's the principal that is at stake. I believe that money owed to the UK by the EU should be returned to the UK ASAP.
... I think the UK needs to be very careful with apparently trying to break up or ruin an international financial institution.... such actions might not be well received by other banks yes ?
But I'd be happy to see X or XX amount withdrawn per annum and used towards paying off the debt we have for other parts of the EU.
meanwhile..
Spoiler:
One hopes it's just poor phrasing but I'm not sure that the cheapness of justice should be seen as the most important point surely ?
There’s a new YouGov poll out which has LAB retaining its 2 points lead over CON. The survey also included the firm’s regular trackers on opinion in relation to Brexit.
In broad terms this has Brexit right at 43% (up 1) with Brexit wrong at 45% (same) so really not much change. The big picture is seen in the chart above – the nation remains broadly divided with the monthly average “right to leave” lead for only the second month moving into negative territory.
This polling, because it has been asked in the same form so often, is establishing itself as the leading polling indicator. There are simply many more data points.
The monthly changes are not huge but taking a month of polls rather than single ones gives us a better sense of the trend.
...on the other hand...
reported to the Daily Mail !?!
... bit sad they apparently cannot spell "scum" but there you go.
I guess being reported to The Daily Mail over supporting Remain is like being reported to the Cookie Monster for not liking biscuits.
.... so leave supporters do not trust anyone then ..?
with regards to opinion polls, I trust them and I don't trust them. If that makes any sense
They got Trump spectacularly wrong, didn't see Brexit coming, and many polls thought May would be gone by Christmas.
Now, a crisis might arise that sees the removal van heading for Downing Street, but IMO, I think May has weathered the storm for the time being.
But yeah, I'm 50/50 on opinion polls, but John Curtice speaks a lot of sense. Always worth listening too.
Modern events have proven half the polls are a worth absolutely nothing. The great vaunted pollsters who helped to shape people's planning have been thrown for a massive loop and least 2-3 big events have been wrong.
I think they have lost there power abit, there no longer a guarantee.
This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.
If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.
Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.
Henry wrote: This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.
If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.
Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.
You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.
Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.
He made a big deal about how they'd keep fighting if they had a narrow loss, even citing 52/48 didn't he? Or was that earlier?
jhe90 wrote: You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.
jhe90 wrote: You mean how the media have treated polls like a dead cert crystal ball for years and even basically declared results before votes even tallied.
Exactly like that, yes.
Not to be political US style but did that also cause some of the upsets.
Ie A Hillary supporter in 2016 might think it il be OK if they cannot get to poll that day, a remain voter thinks they got it in the bag so they stay home on a not so mice rainy day etx.
Ie. If people think it's gonna be in thr bag, they may not have thr dame drive to go out and vote.
Likewise there opposite might be driven to go out. To make vote count.
When the polls are close, yet they proclaim victory.
Then strange things can and do happen like that. It can often only take a small swing in one ares to sway a entire vote.
Some UK constituency have very tiny majority.
Some states have a very tight swing percentage.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.
He said that he felt that Remain had probably won by a narrow margin.
jhe90 wrote: Ie. If people think it's gonna be in thr bag, they may not have thr dame drive to go out and vote.
Likewise there opposite might be driven to go out. To make vote count.
Believing that your side will be defeated can easily demotivate people from going to vote. The 'what's the point' angle applies to both sides.
Polls have a confidence level and margin of error. Typically something like 95% confidence of being within 2%. Let's remind ourselves that Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, which was a couple of percent of all the votes. He got in because of the electoral college system.
To get back on track, if people are foolish enough not to vote because they told a poller they were going to vote X and the polls say X is going to win so they think it's in the bag so they needn't bother to vote, .... well, I don't think anyone can do anything about that. It's why you have a "ground game" to get out your voters on the day. It's why there is an inherent right-wing bias in the UK -- Labour voters are less likely to own cars, and therefore less likely to vote if the weather is bad. That's why Labour Party organisers put effort into arranging lifts and mini-buses.
These problems don't occur in places like China and Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean their system is superior.
I was throwing general ideas into the mix with my comments about border staff.
The point I was trying to make that the money should come home, and be spent on whatever our parliament sees fit, be it border staff, the NHS, or giving every UK household a 6 pack of salt and vinegar crisps!
What the cash is spent on is not the issue - it's the principal that is at stake. I believe that money owed to the UK by the EU should be returned to the UK ASAP.
That really wasn't the point. Yes you provided examples of where the money could be spent. The issue was that your concept of a billion is orders of magnitude out. To be fair this is the same for a lot of people. The general concepts we are taught are on a linear scale because on a day to day basis it is useful. The problem comes when people start talking about 'billions' but lack a comprehension of what that means realistically because it is a logarithmic scale. As such for many people comprehension tends to underestimate just how big a billion (and hence how much bigger 10 billion is). This becomes critical to when we start talking about, for example, the economic impacts of Wrexit and it can lead to an underestimation 'in the minds eye' of how large the problem is.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Didn’t even Farage throw in the towel on brexit night because the polls looked bad for his campaign? Polls are treated as being highly accurate by everyone, not just the public. If anything the politicians and media pin more importance on them than the general public.
He made a big deal about how they'd keep fighting if they had a narrow loss, even citing 52/48 didn't he? Or was that earlier?
Conveniently he back tracked on that when he got what he wanted...the sure sign of someone who only cares about his interests or what he wants without any care about anything or anyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henry wrote: This is more that the public generally don't understand polls (and how they were mis-presented to us by many organisations). Just because the polls indicated that Trump would lose and Brexit would fail, when the opposite happened, doesn't mean the polls are wrong. The experts work with the polls to give a probability of an out come - they don't declare this will be the outcome. A number of polls (especially from the extremely biased sources) will be outliers that don't conform, but a good pollster will be able to account for that.
If you roll a d100 and we ask an audience to put money on whether you roll a 100 or not, most people will put money on not. If you do happen to roll a 100 those people weren't wrong to put their money against it happening, they factored the probability - that's all a poll does.
Don't blame polls for the public not understanding them.
Quite True. I've tried to explain (basic) statistics in these conversations several times but many don't really understand the concept of errors. That figures presented in polls represent the 'most likely' result but that there is a margin of error and that any result on a particular day is subject to statistical variation. This becomes particularly problematic when one very close result is taken as the 'real' result especially when there is a large group not sampled.
My gut instinct about all these referendums is that there is a lot of anti-establishment voting because people don't like the way their life is headed (which is both a government's and individuals responsibility). Hence it draws out a lot of anti-[insert X] votes but they generally are closer to the ceiling of the voting population rather than a floor. If you don't mind the status quo people might be less inclined to vote especially if it looks like your view is going to win anyway. I also wonder just what the result of another referendum would be, that will likely result in those that thought it'll be fine the results going my way to actually come out and vote). The real question is whether it will be enough not just to show the country remains divided.
Herzlos wrote: I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.
If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.
It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.
If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.
Herzlos wrote: I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.
If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.
It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.
If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.
I had came around to the idea of a second referendum, but then I found this. It’s just a simple reminder of how the eu and it’s supporters actually handle decisions. We’ll ask you your opinion on it but we’re getting what we want regardless of what you actually say. So no, not this time. No to any second referendum.
That's a bald-faced lie. Ireland was "made to vote again" after the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate were dealt with in the Seville Declaration, for instance. Anyone with even a passing familiratity with the Treaty of Nice would know that, which really makes me question Hannan's motives and intellectual honesty. Similarly, the Maastricht Treaty was agreed to by Denmark after their concernes were adressed and exceptions added for Denmark in the Edinburgh Agreement of 1992. The European Constitution never took effect either, and Denmark is still using the Krone[i], not the Euro, after a referendum about joining the Eurozone in 2002 defeated the proposal.
Herzlos wrote: I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.
If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.
It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.
If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.
By a 2nd referendum I don't necessarily mean a re-run of the 2016 one. A 2023 "Should the UK rejoin the EU?" would also be 2nd referendum on the subject.
But with something that close, there really should be some sort of follow up to figure out what the gak we actually decided.
What are the questions for the first and second votes in the 'made to vote again' examples, and were any amendments made to any of the treaties between the two votes?
I presume you have those details to have, because this means absolutely nothing without them. If I have a family vote on whether they want to buy me a Lamborghini for Christmas, they vote no, I make them vote again, and they plump for yes, that seems pretty straightforward. When it turns out that the first referred to a real Lamborghini this Christmas, and the second to a model Lamborghini in 2025...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's a bald-faced lie. Ireland was "made to vote again" after the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate were dealt with in the Seville Declaration, for instance. Anyone with even a passing familiratity with the Treaty of Nice would know that, which really makes me question Hannan's motives and intellectual honesty. Similarly, the Maastricht Treaty was agreed to by Denmark after their concernes were adressed and exceptions added for Denmark in the Edinburgh Agreement of 1992. The European Constitution never took effect either, and Denmark is still using the Krone[i], not the Euro, after a referendum about joining the Eurozone in 2002 defeated the proposal.
In other words, you're objectively wrong. Again.
We see this same argument and counter-argument come up quite frequently, and I think both sides are talking at crosshairs. What one side is saying is that the EU does not accept 'No' for an answer. What the other side hears is that the EU always forces its decisions through undemocratically (and counters accordingly). Both statements are similar, but subtly different and alter whether or not the actions taken by the EU could be perceived as reasonable or not.
I think it is quite evident that that EU has a track record of not accepting the result of referendums. But that's because they also have a track record of modifying and altering legislation after having lost the first time in order to try and make it pass the second; often there are specific concerns that people have, and if legislation can be altered just enough to tip 4-5% of the population into changing their mind, a bill will pass the second time.
I don't consider this to be intrinsically unethical, we have a similar system here in our government. The House of Lords frequently bounces legislation back to be edited before it passes. At the same time however, it leads to a loss of faith in those who do oppose the system that they have any ability to affect it. They know that all the EU will do is focus its efforts on sweet talking a small segment of the population enough to alter the outcome of a second vote, and then running it.
Now it could be argued that democracy rules. If the EU can get 52% approval, they win, and their legislation should be made law. Correspondingly however, it should also be recognised that the second more tailored referendum is something of a unfair advantage to the EU team. Why is it unfair? Because the opposing side to the EU (the ones who won the first time) never get the luxury of a second more targeted referendum if they do lose the first time. The legislation just goes through. You'll note that there are many referendums not mentioned on that list above where the EU won by the skin of its teeth; but no second referendum was tabled to give their opposition a second chance. In other words, one side has to win (at least) twice to win, whereas the other side only needs to win once.
Consequently, Remain voters tend be deadly opposed to another vote. They know that if it comes, the EU will offer a few more minor concessions, and then win. They are correct to perceive it as unfair, but the mandate of democracy insists that it has to be this way. It is simply one of the flaws of the system, the home base advantage of whoever controls the power to propose legislation and referendums. It would be better if that bias/advantage did not exist, but it is difficult to see a way in which one could remove it without creating further tools by which democracy could be undermined.
The country does not have the time and energy for a second referendum in the near future. If there was to be a backing out of Brexit in the next 18 months, it would be done through the constitutional mechanism of a vote in Parliament, which has already been called for on the final "deal".
The battle at the moment is how "hard" a Brexit the anti-EU members of the cabinet (and Tory backwoodsmen) can force on the nation as a whole. That's because they fear a soft Brexit and an interim arrangement will leave the opportunity open to rejoin in a few years.
I should have done my research. How could I have forgetten that Denmark doesn’t use the Euro? I’m going there in January for Christ’s sake.
I could try arguing some of the other points (the EU constitution, Lisbon Treaty and Greece’s bailout) but it’s beyound repair now. I wouldn’t change anyone’s mind anyway. Nobody in here will ever change their minds. It’s all just point scoring.
There is a lot of point scoring, but I'd like to think some of us would change our mind given sufficient evidence.
I'll happily change my mind, but the bar is going to have to be pretty high.
Kilkrazy wrote: The country does not have the time and energy for a second referendum in the near future.
The country also doesn't have the time and energy for another economic disaster. If things get as bad as predicted, then people will be calling for another referendum very quickly.
And the economy is going to suffer - the government would be publishing the results of all of these studies if they were showing neutral or positive results.
This is probably in the wrong thread, but imagine a situation where a democratic vote was met with violence, the media was taken over by the state, politicians were being charged with sedition for holding a peaceful democratic vote, and the local police were purged of anti-government elements...
If that happened in any other part of the world, the EU would be the first to call for military intervention.
And yet, that is happening in Spain, and the EU are turning a blind eye to it. Kosovo was recognised by EU members, without so much as a vote cast!
Vote for the EU? Those two faced rats? Never! Not if you paid me a million pounds.
Yet if the EU stepped in* you'd be outraged at the EU interfering with a sovereign nation.
*The EU isn't doing nothing, it just works more slowly and diplomatically. The violence was clearly and swiftly condemned. With the EU as it is now, this incident will spend a lot of time being discussed on and off record, with diplomatic pressure. Before the EU we'd already be looking at a civil war.
What Spain is doing is reprehensible, but it's grossly unfair to treat it as another stick to try and further the anti-EU rhetoric.
DINLT; What exactly do you want the EU to be doing here? Sanctioning Spain? Sending in a combined task force to act as a peacekeeping** force / enforce martial rule?
I can't quite get my head around what the EU is doing wrong here.
This is probably in the wrong thread, but imagine a situation where a democratic vote was met with violence, the media was taken over by the state, politicians were being charged with sedition for holding a peaceful democratic vote, and the local police were purged of anti-government elements...
If that happened in any other part of the world, the EU would be the first to call for military intervention.
And yet, that is happening in Spain, and the EU are turning a blind eye to it. Kosovo was recognised by EU members, without so much as a vote cast!
Vote for the EU? Those two faced rats? Never! Not if you paid me a million pounds.
That's a mighty high horse you're on there, given that our own government have also explicitly stated that we will not support Catalonian independence, the vote was illegal and "Spanish unity must be preserved" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41783238).
Herzlos wrote: Yet if the EU stepped in* you'd be outraged at the EU interfering with a sovereign nation.
*The EU isn't doing nothing, it just works more slowly and diplomatically. The violence was clearly and swiftly condemned. With the EU as it is now, this incident will spend a lot of time being discussed on and off record, with diplomatic pressure. Before the EU we'd already be looking at a civil war.
What Spain is doing is reprehensible, but it's grossly unfair to treat it as another stick to try and further the anti-EU rhetoric.
DINLT; What exactly do you want the EU to be doing here? Sanctioning Spain? Sending in a combined task force to act as a peacekeeping** force / enforce martial rule?
I can't quite get my head around what the EU is doing wrong here.
**That'd probably be the UN, though.
Showing how much contempt they have for European peoples democratic vote.
Glad we are leaving that club, they can keep there membership thanks, we will have our freedom back and be a sovereign nation not just with the EU jackboot firmly on the throat.
And Spain can have a traditional middle finger if they want Gibraltar. Ours now, Ours before, Ours in the future
Showing how much contempt they have for European peoples democratic vote.
Glad we are leaving that club, they can keep there membership thanks, we will have our freedom back and be a sovereign nation not just with the EU jackboot firmly on the throat.
And Spain can have a traditional middle finger if they want Gibraltar. Ours now, Ours before, Ours in the future
I genuinely don't follow any of that. Where does it all fit in? Who's showing contempt? Who's throat is the jackboot on? Why are Spain getting a middle finget about Gibraltar?
Kilkrazy wrote: Gibraltar has little remaining strategic significance for the Royal Navy. (What's left of the RN, anyway.)
It's an exceptionally useful strategic spot for replenishment and light repair purposes. The RN does fair bit in that part of the world (picking up drowning immigrants, coasting for piracy, etc), and the port is of real use. It also provides a little bit of diplomatic quid pro quo with the US, in that they can use our facilities there in exchange for us using theirs elsewhere.
Unless you're hearkening back to the go0od old days of the Mediterranean fleet or somesuch, in which case, yes, we don't do that anymore.
Kilkrazy wrote: Gibraltar has little remaining strategic significance for the Royal Navy. (What's left of the RN, anyway.)
It's an exceptionally useful strategic spot for replenishment and light repair purposes. The RN does fair bit in that part of the world (picking up drowning immigrants, coasting for piracy, etc), and the port is of real use. It also provides a little bit of diplomatic quid pro quo with the US, in that they can use our facilities there in exchange for us using theirs elsewhere
That's old news. The USN uses Rota (just across the corner, as Naval stuff goes) for the most part, except for nuclear subs, which only go to Rota occasionally because of an old row with environmentalists.
Nuclear surface ships are ok for some strange reason.
Kilkrazy wrote: Gibraltar has little remaining strategic significance for the Royal Navy. (What's left of the RN, anyway.)
It's an exceptionally useful strategic spot for replenishment and light repair purposes. The RN does fair bit in that part of the world (picking up drowning immigrants, coasting for piracy, etc), and the port is of real use. It also provides a little bit of diplomatic quid pro quo with the US, in that they can use our facilities there in exchange for us using theirs elsewhere.
Unless you're hearkening back to the go0od old days of the Mediterranean fleet or somesuch, in which case, yes, we don't do that anymore.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. The UK is not a world imperial power and doesn't need all the bases we had in WW2. Plus, most of the countries we used to be fighting against are now firm allies.
It’s important not to romanticise the past, otherwise you end up like a cut-price, leftist Nigel Farage marching to a whinier, less exhilarating drumbeat. But I distinctly remember, this time 20 years ago, it being normal to object to Halloween: not because it was satanic, but because it was American. It was the festival of consumerism and excess, unmoored from any deeper significance, but most of all – being expressly conceived as fun for children, and entailing talking to strangers and asking for things – it was un-English.
Nationalism has taken a depressing turn, this past year and a half. The suspicion of foreigners and alienation of former allies are the greatest practical threats to the country’s wellbeing and prosperity. The let-Britain-roar, grow-wings-and-fly pap is the most unsettling departure from maturity and reason. But it’s the exceptionalism, freely vented for the world to hear, that is the most embarrassing: the idea that our success is assured, whatever decisions we make, because we’re the best at trading, with the best stuff, the finest minds, the most illustrious history. It’s the delusional boastfulness of sketch comedy, a parent standing in a playgroup yelling at everyone to agree that their child is the most advanced.
This is not, however, a story of a nation that was bumbling happily along when suddenly the patriotic beast within was awakened. There was no shortage of national identity before it mutated and was weaponised. There was a very clear sense of Englishness. It was just a different England.
Prior to this Tory rampage, we didn’t say “British”, because we all knew that was a euphemism for “English”, which itself was code for flag-toting, nostalgic monoculturalism. But we were pretty comfortable describing what was un-English: self-aggrandisement; vocal pride – especially for things you had no hand in, such as where you were born; and making large claims for superiority in abstract areas, like national character. These were un-English. The idea of “British values” was oxymoronic, since appropriating some value and claiming to have it in greater quantity than any other country would have been the least English thing.
Of course, you cannot claim for yourself the accolade “most modest”, unless you’re Donald Trump. So the foundation stone of this patriotism was pride in the thing you wouldn’t be seen dead taking pride in: or, to put it more briefly, all nationalism was ironic. We used the union flag ironically, as a backdrop for Patsy Kensit or to set off Liam Gallagher’s eyes. We mentioned national traits only to mock them – chiefly, a collective inability ever to say what we meant. Irony, at the turn of this century, became synonymous with insincerity: a thin gruel, no match for the hearty stew of passion.
But in fact the irony was anything but insincere. Rather, it was the navigational tool of acute self-awareness, an acknowledgment of a delicate tightrope between celebrating the achievements of your compatriots and lauding them as proof of your nation’s supremacy; between feeling loyalty to your fellow citizens, in recognition of the fact that you were all embarked on the creation of a shared future, and fostering an us-against-the-world interiority; between relishing cultural cross-pollination and importing any old nonsense, like Halloween.
A nationalism constantly asserted defines itself against the foreign; a nationalism that goes unstated defines itself from within – its tacit understandings are its connective tissue. It was no accident that we rarely talked about patriotism. But if meaningful patriotism is social – a nationhood based on building collectively within borders, not for geographical reasons but because those are the perimeters of your democratic agency – there was never any shortage of it.
Subtlety has its drawbacks. That brand of tacit solidarity has been under attack now since 2010, when it became routine to divide citizens by whether or not they claimed benefits, were hard-working, were economically active, were northern or southern, were net contributors or recipients. It would have been good to rebut these tropes and defend our sense of responsibility for one another a bit more vocally, rather than leaving it to Twitter and The News Quiz. But ironic distance, the instinctive distrust of grand passions hurled bombastically about, was also protective. It would have been impossible, when irony was the signature of national identity, to imagine a prime minister speechifying about “taking back control” when she didn’t have control even of her three nearest underlings. It would have been unthinkable for ministers to talk about importing chlorinated chicken or growing our own food as an alternative to being party to modern international trading agreements. Not because we would have laughed – we’re laughing now – but because they would have anticipated the ridicule and taken some rudimentary steps to avoid it.
A politics with no sense of the absurd starts to believe its own flourish. Without the deflation of humour, the government is locked into an ever-building climax of preposterous overstatement and bald assertion. Its decisions have never been more consequential, and their unfolding never more dramatic. Yet every week feels eerily similar, ominously stalled. Following Brexit is like trying to find your way out of the woods in twilight and seeing the same tree again and again. It’s gone from disaster movie to horror film: the May Witch Project.
I am reconciled to the import of Halloween. Tomorrow I will dress as a Person With Nits, exactly like a regular person, except with nits, and my trick will be to stand really close to people. I cannot, however, reconcile myself to this post-English politics, pumped-up, self-regarding and humourless. If our national identity meant anything, Brexit is its opposite.
That is an interesting read, however I would take issue with the proposal that the national character has changed since 2010 because of "the Tory Project". The Tories have been projecting since 1979, after all, and New Labour essentially turned out to be Tory lite.
I think the grinding misery of 10 years of austerity has a lot more to do with it (30+ years for a lot of the lower working class.) To be fair, the austere misery is the product of the Tory Project though most people don't see it that way.
Brexit (and Trump) and various political movements around the West, including the rise of right-wing nationalism and populism, are caused by a general worry that liberal democracy with regulated free markets has lost its way.
Kilkrazy wrote: Gibraltar has little remaining strategic significance for the Royal Navy. (What's left of the RN, anyway.)
It's an exceptionally useful strategic spot for replenishment and light repair purposes. The RN does fair bit in that part of the world (picking up drowning immigrants, coasting for piracy, etc), and the port is of real use. It also provides a little bit of diplomatic quid pro quo with the US, in that they can use our facilities there in exchange for us using theirs elsewhere.
Unless you're hearkening back to the go0od old days of the Mediterranean fleet or somesuch, in which case, yes, we don't do that anymore.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. The UK is not a world imperial power and doesn't need all the bases we had in WW2. Plus, most of the countries we used to be fighting against are now firm allies.
Its handy to have locations you can stop safely, and know you can stop at to repair, refuel or such, While we have Nato agreements, those can and do change.
Where as a base you own, is always going to available.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that far-flung bases are useful if you want to maintain a far-flung naval reach, but why does the UK want to do that nowadays?
The more I think about it, the more it seems like hanging on to a relic of Empire.
Ketara would be able to give us a well-informed opinion, as he is doing a masters in war studies if I remember correctly.
We do not know what conflicts are coming up though. the global dynamic may yet change and those bases that where a waste of money become very useful current assets.
Once we hand them over, we lose them forever, so Maintain the capability to operate globally is a key asset.
its a asset we cannot recover if lost.
we would be reliant good will of others, which is not always reliable.
(they also give us the ability of offer help to our allies,a nice political bonus. we can offer support to fellow Nato and other members, thus showing wwe can offer serious support to the organisation)
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree that far-flung bases are useful if you want to maintain a far-flung naval reach, but why does the UK want to do that nowadays?
The more I think about it, the more it seems like hanging on to a relic of Empire.
Ketara would be able to give us a well-informed opinion, as he is doing a masters in war studies if I remember correctly.
More years past my MA at Kent now then I care to remember.
The obvious answer would be that the world of tomorrow is not necessarily the world of today. You might find in a hypothetical future twenty years down the line that an allied Russia/Turkey need keeping an eye on or to be penned at the mouth of the Med, in which case a port in the Med is useful. You might have Libya collapse altogether and start regurgitating pirates all along the coastline Somalia style. You might find the Egyptian Government gets a new dictator who decides to invade Malta for fun.
The wonderful thing about world politics is that you always think that you've quantified the known risks, and then a Falklands or other equally unexpected scenario hits you out of the dark. You can be ambling along fussing about Brexit or Atos scandals, or whatever, and then you wake up one day and the Guatemalan Army has invaded Belize and we have a war on our hands.
Consequently, it is better to retain a functional military port with a friendly population than not. It's the old maxim of, 'Rather have but not need, than need and not have'.
The principle of self-determination should ensure that Gibraltar remains British for the foreseeable future, though if the world changes so much that we need a naval base there and Spain has become an enemy, it probably wouldn't be much use to us.
I suspect we won't be strong enough in 20 years to make much of a difference to a possible Russian-Turkish hostile team-up.
Like the Falklands, the people in Gibraltar firmly wish to remain British despite all the hassle that Spain give them on the border to make it a massive inconvenience. Any ‘sharing’ deal would go down quite badly.
Herzlos wrote: They also wanted to remain in the EU. Which do they value most now?
Staying in the UK by several miles. Try asking anyone from there (I have a few friends there I discuss these things with), they're quite virulently anti-Spanish government . Given the choice between being just another province directly answerable to the corrupt/inefficient joke that is the Spanish Government, and the comfortable state of affairs they have right now, it would take far more than leaving the EU to change that. Right now, they effectively get to handle all domestic affairs themselves whilst outsourcing their national defence, constitutional affairs/tensions, and general legal framework. It's not a bad state of things.
Don't get me wrong, us leaving the EU is a massive PITA for them. Many of them own houses on the other side of the border, they have no railway link on their side, and a massive chunk of their workforce crosses the border every day. The flip side though, is that the Spanish government locking down the border is practically a weekly occurrence there depending on how badly the Spanish government wants to distract people. It's not like they aren't used to regular difficulties in that regard, and have learnt to get on with it as best as they can.
Ironically really, because if the Spanish Government weren't consistently making life awkward for them, they might be more inclined to consider a sharing deal of some kind. But so long as the Spanish Government treats them as a political tool, sabre rattles, and generally ignores all of their interests, they remain staunchly pro-British. Much like the Falklands really.
Herzlos wrote: They also wanted to remain in the EU. Which do they value most now?
Staying in the UK by several miles. Try asking anyone from there (I have), they're quite virulently anti-Spanish government . Given the choice between being just another province directly answerable to the corrupt/inefficient joke that is the Spanish Government, and the comfortable state of affairs they have right now, it would take far more than leaving the EU to change that. Right now, they effectively get to handle all domestic affairs themselves whilst outsourcing their national defence, constitutional affairs/tensions, and general legal framework. It's not a bad state of things.
Don't get me wrong, us leaving the EU is a massive PITA for them. Many of them own houses on the other side of the border, they have no railway link on their side, and a massive chunk of their workforce crosses the border every day. The flip side though, is that the Spanish government locking down the border is practically a weekly occurrence there depending on how badly the Spanish government wants to distract people. It's not like they aren't used to regular difficulties in that regard, and have learnt to get on with it as best as they can.
Ironically really, because if the Spanish Government weren't consistently making life awkward for them, they might be more inclined to consider a sharing deal of some kind. But so long as the Spanish Government treats them as a political tool, sabre rattles, and generally ignores all of their interests, they remain staunchly pro-British. Much like the Falklands really.
Uk allows a high degree of self determination.
Its likely they retain more control over where they live then the Spanish system allows. a advantage for them, but with the added disadvantage that being a small enclave surrounded by another nation is.
However in the case of Spain they Maintain there own Enclaves of territory including in other nations.
Both nations though different still hold old colonial outposts and territory.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Like the Falklands, the people in Gibraltar firmly wish to remain British despite all the hassle that Spain give them on the border to make it a massive inconvenience. Any ‘sharing’ deal would go down quite badly.
Yes, Falklands definitely.
They last vote came up 99% UK.
THey are firmly resolved to be part of UK, and we must respect that choice and not sell them to Argentina. We would go against the very strong majority of the islanders.
Plus the state Argentina is in, i can see why they despite the issues would very much like to remain a UK outpost.
Herzlos wrote: I expect the next referendum will be equally close the other way. I'm looking forward to the response from the "will of the people" when that happens.
If there was ever going to be a second referendum, it should have been agreed upon from the very beginning.
It was also a non binding referendum and that was agreed at the beginning, but everyone treats it as if it were.
It was not, so trying to hold a 2nd one after the fact is moving the goal posts and dirty tricks. You don't get to hold referendum after referendum until you get the answer you wanted. Thats not how referenda work.
If you do that, I'm going to demand a THIRD referendum.
I disagree that there shouldn't be a second referendum, but do agree that there should hence be a third. The point about our politics is that we get a democratic choice and continue to do so. A one off referendum is not a democratic choice in that way. It is a one off sample of the populace on that day. Denying future generations or allowing people not to change their mind (either way) is not a democratic method. It is just a method to allow some people to get what they want and then stick there fingers in the ears and shout very loudly when people mention anything about another vote. It is closer to a dictatorial method of gaining power as it can be used incessantly to argue it's the 'will of the people' when it isn't because you don't know what that is today, tomorrow or in 5 years time.
If the government wants some aspects to become direct democracy (e.g. being in the EU) then a truly democratic system would be that we vote every 5 years on the issue and that is how it is taken forward. That is true democracy as it allows all people to continue to have a say on how the country is run.
I think it is quite evident that that EU has a track record of not accepting the result of referendums. But that's because they also have a track record of modifying and altering legislation after having lost the first time in order to try and make it pass the second; often there are specific concerns that people have, and if legislation can be altered just enough to tip 4-5% of the population into changing their mind, a bill will pass the second time.
Wouldn't it strictly be that the governments highlighted didn't like the result and asked people to vote again (with different arguments obviously!). The EU has never forced any country to retake a vote. On the other hand the consistent swing against the leaving in the second vote shows something and that in a second ballot people are more favourable to the EU. It's not like the EU is holding a gun to a persons head when they vote the second time. Perhaps those that thought it would be fine woke up to find it wasn't and were more determined to vote the second time?
This is probably in the wrong thread, but imagine a situation where a democratic vote was met with violence, the media was taken over by the state, politicians were being charged with sedition for holding a peaceful democratic vote, and the local police were purged of anti-government elements...
Imagine a situation where an event was illegal, it was actioned breaking both state and country laws and the organisers got away with it and the police force was used as a political tool to keep those breaking those laws from being arrested? It's not quite as simple as you are making out. The Catalan president never had the authority to carry out the vote and it was illegal. That the Spanish government went in heavy handed is not open to question, on the other hand there hasn't been a repeat so perhaps they did learn. It's not democracy when a vote is illegally held and without providing both sides to put forward an argument. They are entitled to vote for a referendum but they didn't even get that authorisation in their own parliament in Catalan. I understand the police if they were refusing to take action against those acting illegally, the press is more concerning but it wasn't the free press, more state media and it all depends on what they were saying (of course I'd be suspicious of any state run media). Can you imagine the Tories version of it...oh wait Sky....
However in the case of Spain they Maintain there own Enclaves of territory including in other nations.
Both nations though different still hold old colonial outposts and territory.
There's quite a difference though. Ceuta and Melilla (and the Canaries if you want to go there as well) are fully integral to Spain, under the same tax system (with very minor adjustments).
Gibraltar is basically a giant tax haven that feeds off the British (and to a lesser degree, EU) economy. They have a major stake in remaining part of the EU (workforce, housing, etc.) but at the same time past actions by different Spanish governments have ensured there's an underlying (at times overt) animosity.
Spain basically forced Gibraltarians to fend for themselves back in '69, and they have.
So, with 36 Tory MPs likely to be caught up in the harassment scandal, I wonder if it's time for Labour to try and pressure O'Mara to resign on the basis that the Tories do the same and we get a pile of by-elections all round.
The Tories wont want to because they'll lose their majority, but they'd find it immensely difficult to justify not doing so.
Indeed, the "no suggestion of wrong doing" get out that covers all but one individual suggests that for the most part this is little more than muck raking. But that's not to say that nothing serious will come of this.
Yewtree started out as an investigation of one individual and exposed the qrotesque culture of perverted celebrities. The tapping of Milly Dowler's phone meant the corrupt police could no longer ignore unethical journalism and bought down the most successful newspaper in Britain. The Weinstein case is having immediate repercussions (or is Weinstein just a continuation of Cosby?). This one could end up anywhere - or nowhere.
A spreadsheet of alleged misconduct by Tory MPs, said to be compiled by Conservative researchers, has been leaked to journalists throughout Westminster and an unredacted copy has even been circulated online. Both the Sun and Guido Fawkes have published a partially redacted (in the case of the Sun) and a wholly redacted (in the case of Guido) copy online. Over at the Telegraph, they have also published the list with greater detail on who the subjects are, and they are also helpfully explaining which of the accusations are already known (for example, the affair that Robert Halfon admitted to in 2015).
So why don’t media organisations just publish the list? That’s the question that a lot of our readers are asking.
The first big problem is libel law. Proving the validity of the accusations in the document is hard and if we can’t do that, we can’t publish the document in full. As I wrote in my morning briefing today, practically every journalist has a story of sexual harassment they can’t write up because the survivor doesn’t want to go on the record and they can’t find a second source. (Even with a story as ephemeral as Jeremy Corbyn’s ill-judged choice of a Christmas quotation, I got it from multiple and unconnected sources before writing it up.)
There are, however, a couple of misconceptions about the “dossier” that I can clear up. The first is that it is not really a “dossier” in a professional sense, nor has it been collated by party whips. My understanding, from the two people who passed it to me, is that Conservative staffers have taken it upon themselves to collate the list in order to document worrying patterns and identify if there are any opportunities to corroborate the stories of others. (In the case of Bill Cosby, what doomed him was that it stopped being a “his word versus hers” situation and became a “his word versus hers and hers and hers and hers and hers” one.)
What is frustrating some of the people who helped contribute to the list is the range of accusations covered in it – which, because it is being distributed in partial form, are being lumped together. For example, that a cabinet minister is “handsy in taxis” sits alongside mentioning that Home Secretary Amber Rudd has had a relationship with fellow Tory MP Kwasi Kwarteng. It also notes that Jake Berry’s partner, with whom he lives and has a baby, happens to be Boris Johnson’s office manager. Office gossip, therefore, is being held up as on the same level as accusations of unprofessional and perhaps even criminal conduct
Reading that list I just hear Paul Whitehouse saying "what me, with my reputation"
Men are perverts. In other news the sky is blue today. Are these the type of people we want in charge of the country, probably not. But when in modern times were politicians considered to be upstanding members of the community or role models?
Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit
Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations
The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.
Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.
Tamereth wrote: Reading that list I just hear Paul Whitehouse saying "what me, with my reputation"
Men are perverts. In other news the sky is blue today. Are these the type of people we want in charge of the country, probably not. But when in modern times were politicians considered to be upstanding members of the community or role models?
I think perhaps it is the potential willingness to abuse a position of authority, by some on the list, that could be the issue, rather than the perversions. Frankly I don't give a monkeys if someone gets off on men wearing women's perfume, that's kind of irrelevant to their job, but if they were taking advantage of their position to get someone to do something disagreeable, or to conceal their misdemeanours, that's a bit different.
Old Spice was originally intended for women. It got popular for men because it was included in care packages for WW2 US servicemen.
But yeah, it's completely irrelevant to much of modern society what body parts you like to insert into someone else's body parts, providing your partner agreed from a position of equality.
The fundamentai problem is powerful people taking advantage of less powerful people.
Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit
Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations
The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.
Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.
I think we can work on the principle that the reason they don't release this is because they know just how much bad news is in there and it would be a disaster politically if they released it. As such they are hiding behind the negotiations phase and hope we all quietly forget about it afterwards (though of course we'll be in the mess then anyway). I don't why they bother though. The EU will have told us what David Davis's position is before he even knows it himself (whilst desperately trying to find out what Czechoslovakia want from the negotiations! ).
It would be an interesting court case if someone took them to court over whether they have to release it under the FOI act. If only I was a multimillionaire.
Tamereth wrote: Reading that list I just hear Paul Whitehouse saying "what me, with my reputation"
Men are perverts. In other news the sky is blue today. Are these the type of people we want in charge of the country, probably not. But when in modern times were politicians considered to be upstanding members of the community or role models?
I think perhaps it is the potential willingness to abuse a position of authority, by some on the list, that could be the issue, rather than the perversions. Frankly I don't give a monkeys if someone gets off on men wearing women's perfume, that's kind of irrelevant to their job, but if they were taking advantage of their position to get someone to do something disagreeable, or to conceal their misdemeanours, that's a bit different.
Agreed. The problem is that it appears that men in positions of power let that power go to their head and think they can get away with things (it appears less apparent in women but not completely). That then leads them to exploit people that want to get on in the world and to an extent are vulnerable to manipulation.
Some of the items are like whatever, if you want to be pee'd on by three guys that is up to you. On the other hand things like getting someone pregnant and then forcing them to have an abortion, if true, should be instant dismissal, do not pass go, do not collect £200, go straight to jail.
Kilkrazy wrote: Old Spice was originally intended for women. It got popular for men because it was included in care packages for WW2 US servicemen.
But yeah, it's completely irrelevant to much of modern society what body parts you like to insert into someone else's body parts, providing your partner agreed from a position of equality.
The fundamentai problem is powerful people taking advantage of less powerful people.
Well it appears that May was warned three times that whips were using knowledge of indiscretions to 'exploit' people to vote in a certain way. A specific question asked in PMQs directly to the PM by Lisa Nandy. May's response "er, um, err, err, I'll look into it, oh and it was Labour that got us into this mess anyway"
You can see one of the questions asked here (12:51):-
In other news the reasons for not having a new referendum are now getting more desperate. IDS is now on records stating that we shouldn't have one because...
"Imagine the hate-filled campaign that would divide this country. I do not think that is a price worth paying." and
"It would be the most divisive event in this country since the arguments over Irish home rule at least, to try and go back over this issue,"
Of course we are already divided on the issue and has already increased hate filled aggression against people (immigrants, Gina Miller etc) but then I suppose he doesn't count any of these things arising from the original vote because he got what he wanted...
Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.
How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?
I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.
How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?
I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.
For sure, the referendum wasn't legally binding, but the act of parliament that activated A50 definitely was legally binding.
I said at the time that Remain supporters crowing over Gina Millar's courtroom victory better be careful what they wish for, because once Parliament gives the government the green light, the government has a hell of a lot of leeway in these things, and there is historical precedent for this going back to 1815's Congress of Vienna.
Remain supporters wanted the rulebook to be adhered too. They may have got it flung back at them.
As for Simon Jenkins, I pretty sure he wanted us in the Euro, so from my viewpoint, I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.
Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit
Department for Exiting the EU refuses to respond to Labour MP’s request to see work on 58 sectors of the economy, saying it needs a ‘safe space’ for negotiations
The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.
Seema Malhotra, a Labour MP on the Brexit committee, had asked to know the scope, terms of reference and state of completion of the work on 58 sectors of the economy, but the department refused to release the details under freedom of information laws.
I'm not sure what you mean by an act of parliament being legally binding. It is legally binding up to the point that another act of parliament makes it no longer legally binding.
Thus, it's perfectly reasonable that another referendum on the topic of EU membership would be as effective as the previous one, depending on the behind the scenes manoeuvring within the Conservative Party.
Let's remember that the reason for the earlier referendum was that Cameron thought he would win, silence the Tory "Bastards", squash UKIP, and reign supreme over a re-unified Conservative movement. But it all went wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.
How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?
I think what is more interesting is why it has come up. Although there are a few that have mooted in public another referendum (Green's and LDs etc) there hasn't been a lot of other public debate. However as we know politicians like to go public on a private debate to try and shut things down. The question is then is there a growing private debate in parliament that there should be a second vote? Is this voice getting louder and hence IDS statement?
I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.
I think we can probably conclude that they are negative. If they were all rosy then they would probably release them to try and grind the Remain argument into the dust. That they don't would imply that they show significant risks for the economy almost everywhere. That would pretty much damn the current government. The clamour for a rethink would become very loud but they would lose all support from defecting UKIP supporters (by no longer being newUKIP). Trying to bury them is perhaps the best way they can find to try and stop everything hitting the fan. However she is actually stuck. She has already said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If that really is the case then there is actually no harm in releasing the information because it actually strengthens her position because she has a position which she can point to and say "look if it gets worse than this we might as well go no deal". That they don't indicates just how bad things are.
Even Davis is now admitting that whatever the deal is made the EU will be the better off of the two parties and separately it is looking unlikely that current free trade deals we have by being in the EU will be lost on day one of leaving. To note that is with 65 countries (bizarrely of course they just want to copy the existing deals which makes you wonder why we are leaving?).
However Davis does still want a "deep and meaningful relationship" with the EU. Given the current scandal in the UK parliament I would advise the EU to stay well away from such things...
I said at the time that Remain supporters crowing over Gina Millar's courtroom victory better be careful what they wish for, because once Parliament gives the government the green light, the government has a hell of a lot of leeway in these things, and there is historical precedent for this going back to 1815's Congress of Vienna.
Those of us who supported the Millar case (even if we don't support her politics) are still crowing about the case. It was an absolutely essential case that crushed the Prime Minister's attempt to illegally extend her power.
The consequences to the Brexit issue are neither here nor there. The importance for democracy was paramount.
The motion, calling on the government "to end the public sector pay cap for the armed forces and give armed forces personnel a fair pay rise" is agreed without a vote.
Hooray!
The motion is not binding on the government, so ministers do not have to take action in response to it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would a second referendum be binding? The first wasn't, but it precipitated Brexit anyway.
How would it be worded? I don't think the country knows what it wants. Is there a simple majority for leaving the EU and staying in the EEA? That's what Simon Jenkins wants Remainers to sign up to. It would be a second best choice to staying but it was ruled out months ago by May. Would the question be Remain versus Leave again?
I think what is more interesting is why it has come up. Although there are a few that have mooted in public another referendum (Green's and LDs etc) there hasn't been a lot of other public debate. However as we know politicians like to go public on a private debate to try and shut things down. The question is then is there a growing private debate in parliament that there should be a second vote? Is this voice getting louder and hence IDS statement?
I don't know why May doesn't release the reports. Perhaps they are pretty negative, and she doesn't want the Brexiteers in the Tory Party to have an excuse for back-stabbing her. It's hard to see why she would not release them if they are positive. As it stands, Brexit is owned by the Tories. if it's a disaster they are the ones we will all blame.
I think we can probably conclude that they are negative. If they were all rosy then they would probably release them to try and grind the Remain argument into the dust. That they don't would imply that they show significant risks for the economy almost everywhere. That would pretty much damn the current government. The clamour for a rethink would become very loud but they would lose all support from defecting UKIP supporters (by no longer being newUKIP). Trying to bury them is perhaps the best way they can find to try and stop everything hitting the fan. However she is actually stuck. She has already said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If that really is the case then there is actually no harm in releasing the information because it actually strengthens her position because she has a position which she can point to and say "look if it gets worse than this we might as well go no deal". That they don't indicates just how bad things are.
Even Davis is now admitting that whatever the deal is made the EU will be the better off of the two parties and separately it is looking unlikely that current free trade deals we have by being in the EU will be lost on day one of leaving. To note that is with 65 countries (bizarrely of course they just want to copy the existing deals which makes you wonder why we are leaving?).
However Davis does still want a "deep and meaningful relationship" with the EU. Given the current scandal in the UK parliament I would advise the EU to stay well away from such things...
Leaving in name only.....
Only the British at this time could come up with such a genius masterplan. 'Foolproof I tells ya'.
I think its pretty obvious that the Eu bloc would be better off after a divorce than the UK. I had hoped for more from our 'team'. I actually kick myself for naivety of thought when I assumed that there could be a national effort at negotiating a settlement rather than the tribal politics which are yet again making mugs of us on the world stage.
Although I do not see a need to release all the information I think both sides should start being more transparent on their objectives for negotiation. Nebulous ideals and lofty goals are fine but there have to some points which the Eu and UK agree on which can be settled in public. We have agreed with each other on some goods on quotas, with the WTO notified.
The motion, calling on the government "to end the public sector pay cap for the armed forces and give armed forces personnel a fair pay rise" is agreed without a vote.
Hooray!
The motion is not binding on the government, so ministers do not have to take action in response to it.
covenant-my-arse
This has been done or a number of votes now. Rather than debate and make a meaningful approach to any UK political issue they are taking the approach of abstaining from anything that could be embarrassing or reveal splits. They are now making 3 line whips on MPs just to abstain.
It is a complete farce and making Theresa May is making a complete mockery of our democratic system. We are in a position where an opposition member has to put forward an argument for such things as Universal credit just so they can vote on it. On top of the railroading of ensuring that the Tories always get a majority on any important committee (where traditionally it sits as per the ratio of MPs by party) and the Brexit bill which effectively allows government to make changes to most legislation 'because of Wrexit' shows just how little May and current Tories actually think of democracy.
This Tory even had the gall to worry about a tyrannical rule by a minority Labour government when the reality it is the Tories we should be worried about right now, not Labour.
Seems like Presumption of Innocence is a forgotten concept nowadays...
As reds8n posted on the last page, a number of them are pretty well known and have been addressed in the past. A lot of them are little more than muck raking and gossip, and actually have no charge to account for. Litigiously, it's a lot easier to say that somebody has done something that isn't illegal than it is to accuse them of something that is. They may not have done anything illegal but some of their actions can viewed as seedy. Presumption of innocence only applies in court (under the UN's Universal Decleration of Human Rights, article 11, as I have just learned).
Another day, another debacle for the government. Here we are in the middle of crucial Brexit negotiations, and the government is plunged into another crisis because a married man couldn't keep his hands to himself.
I really despair at the idiots and fools that run this country. If we ever needed a modern day Cromwell to sweep these away, now is the time. I would not trust them to find their rears with a map and compass!
The Tories think they're born to rule. Born to rule? Don't make me laugh.
I've just finished reading about 1941 and the North Africa campaign. The British Army is in urgent need of reinforcements, so Churchill takes the gamble of rushing a convoy past Gibraltar so it'll reach Alexandria quicker than the Cape route.
The man was that nervous about U-Boat attacks and German bombing agains the convoy, that he barely slept or ate for two days and by all accounts nearly chewed his fingernails to the bone.
Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?
Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?
The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.
Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?
The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.
The system is not the issue here. You look at some of the great British Prime Ministers of history: Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger, Disraeli, Gladstone, LLoyd George, Churchill, Atlee, even Harold Wilson whom I rate, and they were all elected under First Past the Post.
Had Pitt the Elder not taken ill, he would probably have been PM for longer, and there's a good chance the American revolution may not have happened. He was sympathetic to the colonists.
The quality of leader this nation used to produce is something we used to take for granted.
Fallon didn't quit because of a hand on a knee 15 years ago. There's more to this than meets the eye, and he's jumped before he was pushed. A whole can of worms is ready to be opened this week, and every party will have a gak storm heading their way. What a mess
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote: So did Anthony Eden and Neville Chamberlain. ?
Eden was a very good foreign sec. was one of the few to speak out against appeasement, and the Suez debacle, and Eisenhower's intervention, is something that Ike admitted years later to being a mistake. Ike regretted not supporting the British over Suez.
As for Chamberlain, people forget how popular appeasement actually was. The Battle of The Somme was only 22 years previously, and the scars were still there in Britain.
And at any rate, who could he turn to? The Soviet Union was feared and despised. Italy was fascist, France was a mess in the 1930s, and the USA (which Chamberlain didn't rate anyway) was isolationist.
Britain was keen on peace in Europe, as its global Empire faced numerous problems: The Arab revolt in the Middle East, Italian intrigue in The Med and Africa, trouble in India, and a major military construction project in Singapore and Hong Kong with new defences, so an eye had to be kept on Japan.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...As for Chamberlain, people forget how popular appeasement actually was. The Battle of The Somme was only 22 years previously, and the scars were still there in Britain.
And at any rate, who could he turn to? The Soviet Union was feared and despised. Italy was fascist, France was a mess in the 1930s, and the USA (which Chamberlain didn't rate anyway) was isolationist.
Britain was keen on peace in Europe, as its global Empire faced numerous problems: The Arab revolt in the Middle East, Italian intrigue in The Med and Africa, trouble in India, and a major military construction project in Singapore and Hong Kong with new defences, so an eye had to be kept on Japan.
It does kind of put our current political situation into perspective, knowing the genuine and real threats faced by the Nation back then.
SIR Michael Fallon has confirmed that his sexual transgressions make him unfit to be defence minister but, luckily, still fine to be a Tory MP.
Fallon has resigned from the cabinet to avoid it being besmirched by allegations of sexual misconduct, but confirmed that the wider group of Conservatives in parliament can be proud to have him.
He said: “As we all know, groping and other univited sexual advances were acceptable in the 1970s and also enjoyed a retro resurgence during the period 2002-2007.
“And while my enthusiastic, envelope-pushing activities in that area mean I can no longer serve in the cabinet alongside pure souls like Boris Johnson and Liam Fox, it in no way disqualifies me from the Commons.
“By good fortune, my misbehaviour falls into that exact grey area between ‘falling on my sword as a distraction’ and ‘losing our tiny parliamentary majority’.
“I remain proud to serve the people of Sevenoaks. I warn them not to get too close.”
This is satirical (in case it isn't clear) but like all the best satire makes a very good point - how come Fallon has to resign as a Minister, but not a MP?
Ruth Davidson getting wired in about how political 'locker room culture' needs to stop. I imagine she's forgotten about when she was telling jokes about Stephen Crabbe sexting young women last year.
Honestly, why are politicians such imbeciles when it comes to contradicting things they've said and done publicly? It's like Sarwar insisting he never shared a platform with Tories during the independence campaign when there are thousands of photographs of him doing just that.
Compare that sacrifice and dedication to duty to the in this day and age, and I wonder what the feth happened to this nation? Forget Brexit here, why are our leaders no better than a bucket of horsegak?
The uncharitable answer would be that they're representative of your populace as a whole. I'd instead argue that First Past the Post is slowly strangling your democracy; you can't exactly vote Labour out of office if you hate the Tories even more.
Yes, and no.
FPTP isn't great, but it's worked OK so far.
My main beef with it is that it creates the possibility of 'safe seats'. Such things strike me as anathema to democracy. Because no matter what your party does, you can rest on a certain level of support because reasons.
Move to PR, and we might see the populace more engaged with the whole process. That can only be a good thing.
Honestly, on a day that I'm more grumpy than usual I'd consider FPTP pseudo-democratic at best, since the system can mean that a person's vote is literally worthless. In a proportional system a party with 46% of the vote would get very close to 46% of the seats in Parliament; in FPTP you can have a "majority" through winning 36% of the vote. It's a system that is anathema to majoritarian rule. The value of your vote should not be dependent on what party all your neighbours voted for.
The entire foundation for democracy as a legitimate system of governance is that it has the support of the populace it governs and that everyone's vote is worth the same. A system that lets someone become President of the United States when someone else got more votes, for instance, is absolutely insane from my point of view because it effectively disenfranchises voters, undermining the entire system's legitimacy in the process.
The Tories think they're born to rule. Born to rule? Don't make me laugh.
And yet the only known outcome of Brexit is that the Tories can run with less oversight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So this dirty dossier, that is claimed to be a list of transgressions to be aware of, but is more likely used for blackmail, is public. So that now means that the Tory party method for controlling a huge number of it's MP's is now invalid. That's just going to cause even more fractions.
My main beef with it is that it creates the possibility of 'safe seats'. Such things strike me as anathema to democracy. Because no matter what your party does, you can rest on a certain level of support because reasons.
Move to PR, and we might see the populace more engaged with the whole process. That can only be a good thing.
FPTP only works when you have two parties. Generally in such circumstances you do get a number of MPs that is proportional to the vote (although you still have the issue of wasted votes). As soon as you have more than two parties that's when FPTP fails. The smaller third parties will generally not draw equally from the two largest so it can end up draining support on one side more than another. That then gives the other side an easy win even if there actual vote goes down. It's a bad system in todays politics with multiple parties. Additionally in these circumstances the current government can also start redrawing boundaries to facilitate them getting more seats with less votes....cough...Tories...cough.
The demand is getting louder to change the system and I think it will happen eventually because of greater awareness how poor the system is. However unsurprisingly the Tories resist such changes as it will likely lead to them never getting power again as left and centre left wing ideology in this country is more predominant, it is just split across multiple ideals whereas apart from UKIP Tories don't really have another comparison party to draw votes away from them (because lets face it only 30% of the population actually like right wing politics).
It would be interesting though if they changed the system to allow you to vote once in whatever region you wanted. That would then give those with the wasted vote a chance to vote where it did matter. Of course it would probably turn out like a badly worked GW global campaign!!
Living in a "safe" Labour seat it is frustrating that my vote is wasted no mater who I support. The problem with changing to a system other than FPTP is that it has to be done by the government of the time. But as FPTP got them in power in the first place there unlikely to want to change things.
Fallon's resignation has got me wondering what he actually got up to. Touching a woman's knee fifteen years ago is not what you fall on your sword for
GoatboyBeta wrote: Fallon's resignation has got me wondering what he actually got up to. Touching a woman's knee fifteen years ago is not what you fall on your sword for
Rabbit hole probably keeps going down on this one. A bit like the expenses scandal, people aren’t really surprised but it increases their contempt for our leaders. One scandal after the next increases that perception they are like modern day aristocrats - MPs think they are so much more privileged than everyone else that they are entitled to take what they want and treat people how they like with total impunity. You have to wonder how much was known by people working in the media that gives them leverage over the government, when people like Murdoch seem to weasel their way in everywhere and things like the suggestions made by the Leveson inquiry come to nothing.
The Tories think they're born to rule. Born to rule? Don't make me laugh.
And yet the only known outcome of Brexit is that the Tories can run with less oversight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So this dirty dossier, that is claimed to be a list of transgressions to be aware of, but is more likely used for blackmail, is public. So that now means that the Tory party method for controlling a huge number of it's MP's is now invalid. That's just going to cause even more fractions.
Good.
Sooner their self interest needs to tear that party apart. They need to reform and get with the 21st Century.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Fallon's resignation has got me wondering what he actually got up to. Touching a woman's knee fifteen years ago is not what you fall on your sword for
Rabbit hole probably keeps going down on this one. A bit like the expenses scandal, people aren’t really surprised but it increases their contempt for our leaders. One scandal after the next increases that perception they are like modern day aristocrats - MPs think they are so much more privileged than everyone else that they are entitled to take what they want and treat people how they like with total impunity. You have to wonder how much was known by people working in the media that gives them leverage over the government, when people like Murdoch seem to weasel their way in everywhere and things like the suggestions made by the Leveson inquiry come to nothing.
He likely was trying to maybe kill the intrest before someone decided to go digging too deep and unearth somthing more intresting.
The majority are hard-working and want to do the best for their constituents. It's just a character flaw that leads some of them to be gak baggers.
Of course not all are, but rather a few are, and it creates a very bad impression of our leaders. And frankly there are only 650 if them, you’d think we could find that many competent people in the UK who aren’t perverts and crooks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The sex scandal in Parliament crosses over with the sex scandal in Hollywood, the sex scandal in the Catholic Church, the sex scandal in British popular media of the 1970s (Jimmy Saville, etc.)
The majority are hard-working and want to do the best for their constituents. It's just a character flaw that leads some of them to be gak baggers.
Of course not all are, but rather a few are, and it creates a very bad impression of our leaders. And frankly there are only 650 if them, you’d think we could find that many competent people in the UK who aren’t perverts and crooks.
Compatent...
Well I'd say your going a a little far if you on about UKMP's at times.
They hardly thr titans of old.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Note Labour actively suspended someone. Rather than the Tory ‘oh, I’ll just go sit on the back bench’ and nowt more said.
They recently had to tackle that issue, and try and deal with some rather uncomfortable moments. They not had it easy either.
Ken livingstone was embarrassing to say the least.
And yes. Depending on action suspensions deserved. Having a affair though is rather not a thing that should have you on any lists. That's a personal problem instead of one worthy of being black listed.
Apparently its due to new allegations about an previous incident of harassment that he was reprimanded over. It will be interesting to see who is the first to claim the moral high ground. No doubt that like the expenses there's more than enough muck to go around the entire commons.
Future War Cultist wrote: And while we’re at it, ask him why he would take money from Iran in the first place, a country that hangs people for being gay.
Probably for the same reason Theresa May and the British Government not only happily takes money, but actively courts it, from other middle Eastern countries that execute people for being gay.
Were you trying to play the one-up-on-the-other-side game? or were you holding Corbyn to a higher standard?
Compel wrote: But such actions do regularly result in criticism against the British Government that does question the extent of its commitment towards gay rights...
As unpleasant as Iran is in many of its policies, it is a democracy of sorts. Yet we are pals with its neighbour the absolute monarchy that funds and promotes worldwide a strain of radical Islam instead? Yay for cold war game playing I guess?
GoatboyBeta wrote: As unpleasant as Iran is in many of its policies, it is a democracy of sorts. Yet we are pals with its neighbour the absolute monarchy that funds and promotes worldwide a strain of radical Islam instead? Yay for cold war game playing I guess?
The argument there is that our soft power results in actual changes. Given the fact that women are now allowed to drive there and the up and coming Prince and most of the officer corps of the Army are now far more westernised, I think it could be reasonably claimed that there is some merit to the approach.
Whether Late Night Corbyn Live contributes to that with Iran is another question altogether, anymore than it counted when Galloway was taking Hussein's money.
The second argument is that Saudi Arabia is sweet talked for the good of the economy, and many thousands of vital jobs in our defence sector. Again, it is questionable whether the enrichment of Corbyn/his constituency Labour Party fulfills the same 'greater good' in that manner.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK and USA are a bit unusual among modern democratic nations in not having some form of proportional voting system.
Given that UKIP obtained 4 million votes at their peak, and given your dislike for Farage and UKIP, would you be happy with a PR voting system that sent 20-30 UKIP MPs to The Commons?
For some people, 1 UKIP MP is one to many, never mind 30!
The majority are hard-working and want to do the best for their constituents. It's just a character flaw that leads some of them to be gak baggers.
Of course not all are, but rather a few are, and it creates a very bad impression of our leaders. And frankly there are only 650 if them, you’d think we could find that many competent people in the UK who aren’t perverts and crooks.
Compatent...
Well I'd say your going a a little far if you on about UKMP's at times.
They hardly thr titans of old.
The titans of old often didn't need to be elected by the populace.
Given that UKIP obtained 4 million votes at their peak, and given your dislike for Farage and UKIP, would you be happy with a PR voting system that sent 20-30 UKIP MPs to The Commons?
For some people, 1 UKIP MP is one to many, never mind 30!
Democracy means respecting those you don't agree with have representation, too.
Fully proportional has its own flaws (dilluting the influence of regions, making sparsely populated areas less relevant...) so most countries go for a hybrid system. Like regional constituencies sending a number of MPs, a minimum vote threshold for representation, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK and USA are a bit unusual among modern democratic nations in not having some form of proportional voting system.
Given that UKIP obtained 4 million votes at their peak, and given your dislike for Farage and UKIP, would you be happy with a PR voting system that sent 20-30 UKIP MPs to The Commons?
For some people, 1 UKIP MP is one to many, never mind 30!
Absolutely yes!
I made the point after the 2015 election that it was completely unjust that UKIP had scored I think it was 13% of the vote and didn't get a single seat. If I remember correctly, their only MP was elected on the Conservative ticket and crossed the floor later.
If we are to operate our government as a parliamentary representative democracy, people have to be properly represented. This means it is better having your enemy inside your tent pissing out, rather than outside your tent pissing in.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK and USA are a bit unusual among modern democratic nations in not having some form of proportional voting system.
Given that UKIP obtained 4 million votes at their peak, and given your dislike for Farage and UKIP, would you be happy with a PR voting system that sent 20-30 UKIP MPs to The Commons?
For some people, 1 UKIP MP is one to many, never mind 30!
Absolutely yes!
I made the point after the 2015 election that it was completely unjust that UKIP had scored I think it was 13% of the vote and didn't get a single seat. If I remember correctly, their only MP was elected on the Conservative ticket and crossed the floor later.
If we are to operate our government as a parliamentary representative democracy, people have to be properly represented. This means it is better having your enemy inside your tent pissing out, rather than outside your tent pissing in.
I disagree. It depends on what you believe is most important, being able to have a party that vaguely represents your views or a specific representative who may or may not align with your political or moral beliefs but who's primary job is to represent the views of the people they represent. Personally I prefer the FPTP system as it gives me a local representative who can be held to account. PR gives you little direct accountability. Personally I would like to see the ability to recall MPs and for less of a focus on the power of the party, so more ability for an MP to make their own choice when voting rather than go down the PR route. PR would just lead to more of a gap between politicians and the general public and a more entrenched political class.
Fruit and vegetables are being left to rot on British farms because of a shortage of labour, according to the National Farmers Union, which is calling on the government to implement a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to fix the problem.
Ali Capper, whose fruit farm on the border between Herefordshire and Worcestershire sells Gala apples to supermarkets, said the business had 20 per cent fewer workers than usual in September.
“If the fruit becomes over-ripe, the skin gets tacky and greasy, added Ms Capper, who is chair of the NFU’s horticulture team. “We ended up having to send 100 bins of Gala apples for juice. Those apples should have been Class 1 apples on supermarket shelves. To a farmer, sending Class 1 apples for juice is a waste.”
She said apples used for juice fetched one-fifth of the price of those sold to supermarkets for eating.
The NFU’s monthly labour survey showed a 29 per cent shortfall in seasonal workers for horticulture businesses in September, up from 17 per cent in May.
The UK farming industry is heavily dependent on pickers from the EU — notably eastern Europe — for seasonal work. Low unemployment rates and the seasonal nature of farm work makes it difficult to attract domestic pickers, the sector argues.
At the same time, the UK has also become less attractive to seasonal workers mostly from Romania and Bulgaria because of the fall in the value of sterling against the euro since Britain voted last year in a referendum to leave the EU.
Minette Batters, deputy chair of the NFU, said the UK urgently needed to re-introduce a seasonal agriculture workers scheme similar to the one that existed between 1945 and 2013.
She added most EU countries operate such arrangements, which typically extend well beyond the regional bloc to include other nations, such as Ukraine, Thailand and Morocco.
“Waste hasn’t been catastrophic this year but we don’t want this to get to a seismic scale [next year] — we want the government to act,” said Ms Batters. “Farms are having to move people around, people are having to work longer hours, which is putting strain on already strained businesses.”
Ms Capper said farmers were reluctant to speak publicly about the fruit and vegetables they were leaving to rot in fields, for fear that supermarket groups would think they were not running their businesses effectively.
She cited the case of a soft fruit farmer in Scotland who grows 350 tons of blueberries but had to leave between 50 to 100 tons to waste because of a labour shortage, which cost him £500,000.
A Kent soft fruit farmer was unable to find enough labour to pick 100 tons of raspberries, out of a total of 2,000 tons, which cost him £700,000, said Ms Capper, adding that broccoli, cauliflower and pumpkins were also rotting in fields.
Beverly Dixon, director of human resources at G’s, one of the UK’s largest growers of vegetables, said labour trends did not bode well for next summer.
“We had double the number of no-shows and double the number of early leavers this summer, which added to our labour bill,” she added. “Usually we have a waiting list of 700 to 800 people in July. This year we had zero.”
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that access to overseas migrant labour was a policy area led by the Home Office.
It added: “We recognise securing a strong agricultural workforce is crucial as we develop a new approach to farming outside the EU. The government has commissioned advice from the migration advisory committee to better understand reliance on EU migrant workers across the wider economy and we will work closely with our food and farming industry to consider their specific needs.”
According to Defra, there were 67,000 seasonal workers in 2015, while farming industry figures put the number at about 80,000.
but we're supposed to grow more food to counteract the price rises that ...
Appearing before the international trade committee, Liam Fox was forced to admit that EU trade arrangements with other countries, like Israel, South Korea and the US, could not be rolled over after Brexit and would need to be negotiated.
This doesn't stop the nonsense, of course. Fox was still insisting he can sort all of these arrangements by the time the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. But in fact there are 759 arrangements, according to the Financial Times, on everything from customs arrangements to agricultural quotas to pharmaceutical rules.
Meanwhile, David Davis was admitting to a Lords committee that the withdrawal agreement "will probably favour the [European] Union". He also - and this went unnoticed by most of the media - effectively ruled out no-deal.
...I believe that works out to be around 3 trade deals done and dusted every 2 days.
seven years plus some of the current deals have been/are being worked on for .
Only one person in UK's Brexit negotiation team has experience making trade deals
When asked how many officials in the Brexit department had previous involvement making similar deals, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox could name only one
I'd guess, if it's true, that they're mostly/all in super-safe seats so by-elections would just return more Tories.
That depends. Remember Amber Rudd was meant to be in a safe seat and only won by a tiny margin. Suppose they are in London or Remainer areas? By-elections traditionally have a lower turn out but what happens if people turn up to stick one in the Governments eye metaphorically. The Tories are that bad at the moment I would not be surprised if even safe seats look wobbly.
Of course as it's Christmas we might just end up with a big turkey.
It would be interesting though. Wrexit would have to be put on hold, there wouldn't be any chance of agreeing anything before next October as Labour will likely win and completely change senior civil servants...
I disagree. It depends on what you believe is most important, being able to have a party that vaguely represents your views or a specific representative who may or may not align with your political or moral beliefs but who's primary job is to represent the views of the people they represent. Personally I prefer the FPTP system as it gives me a local representative who can be held to account. PR gives you little direct accountability. Personally I would like to see the ability to recall MPs and for less of a focus on the power of the party, so more ability for an MP to make their own choice when voting rather than go down the PR route. PR would just lead to more of a gap between politicians and the general public and a more entrenched political class.
Except the current system doesn't either. Hardly anyone votes on what the local MP does and is dominated by Government politics. There may be a few exceptions but in the majority we don't have local representation in that way. You can easily have local representation in a PR system anyway. All you do is regionalise the PR system and then anyone of those MPs ca be you local representative. The advantage is that complaining about UC to your Tory MP that is IDS is about as useful as going swimming with lead lined trousers on, you wouldn't have that with a regionalised PR system because you can go and speak to the MP that more aligns with your political views.
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
The thing is she is quoting statements. Now yes they are horrible jokes, but as a population we tend to ignore things we can't see or hear whilst sticking our fingers in our ears. Sometimes we need to hear these things to realise how abhorrent they are. People don't like to hear it because it embarrasses people (and there will be some that likely laughed at such jokes in the past). If you hide nasty spiteful things they tend to carry on under the surface. To truly deal with them you have to shine a spotlight on them and make people feel uncomfortable so they can be aware of them when they come across them in the future.
Only one person in UK's Brexit negotiation team has experience making trade deals
When asked how many officials in the Brexit department had previous involvement making similar deals, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox could name only one
..hope he doesn't get ill.
Or want any time off.
Or sleep.
or she...I hear they are however leaving. The have a job with the EU, better working hours, better pay and bosses that actually listen to them rather than just lusting over them at lunch time.
However don't worry I hear they have someone lined up. David Davis has found a 10 year old the successfully managed to get £1000 from him in exchange for the kid's rotten apple core. DD thinks they have potential to help him with the EU. He's not sure though what the use of a mouldy apple core is to him though?
Only recently someone else in the public eye quoted something offensive and was then taken to task as through they said it and meant it. Are we incapable of discussing issues and using language in Frank terms without offence being caused? If you can’t even repeat and quote language used it stifles debate. “Hush, yo can’t discuss this or quote them because you say bad words”. Total and utter nonsense.
I think there are things that are genuinely so shocking and anti-social that to use them as figures of speech or examples of X or Y actually is a stupid thing if you don't think carefully about the situation. It's not like Harriet Harman was constructing a serious academic argument in a paper.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there are things that are genuinely so shocking and anti-social that to use them as figures of speech or examples of X or Y actually is a stupid thing if you don't think carefully about the situation. It's not like Harriet Harman was constructing a serious academic argument in a paper.
Well she was to an extent as she was talking about her autobiography and the struggles against what at the time was more in your face bigotry, racism and sexism. I do not people should fear pointing out sentences, statements, jokes or whatever that are completely abhorrent as a way of highlighting those things. Many people will quite casually gloss over things when basically you say "we said some really naughty things at times", because some will believe that it is an exaggeration, some that it probably wasn't that bad, some that it was the times back then and so on - allowing them to ignore things they would prefer not to see/hear/talk about. You have to expose some of these concepts even if it makes people uncomfortable because that is the way you challenge what is being said (and why).
So then why the suggestion that Andrew Neil would have found it funny in the past?
Saying shocking things with the intent to shock into awareness, to deliver an undisguised truth to the audience, can be done well. Diane Abbott, for as much as I loath her, did it very well when she used the N word on a live broadcast. It was shocking and honest, it was done well.
Almost everything about Harman's blunder, as well intentioned as it may have been, was wrong.
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
Watching that last night, I was struck by the reaction of the comedienne and Portillio who were both espousing free speech and the right to offend, and how that changed when Harriet Harman actually said something offensive. Andrew Neil couldn't tell her to shut up quick enough.
What was also mildly offensive was the overt right wing leaning of Andrew Neil. He fawned all over Edwin Curry, and consistently talked over and assisted the conservative attack on Harriet. I've noticed it before, and it's starting to become more and more blatant. Right wing dogma and opinion is given free uninterrupted airtime, rebuttals and challenges are obfuscated by the host to the point that the conservative guests don't even have to respond....
Henry wrote: So then why the suggestion that Andrew Neil would have found it funny in the past?
This. Unless you're literally addressing a facist, making a Holocaust Joke and then effectively saying 'That's the sort of humour you like, innit?' is probably a bad idea. She tried to score a political one up over Neil with a Holocaust joke.
That's the 'unacceptable' context, not the fact she stated that these jokes exist. If she'd stopped before that point, it would have been all right.
And bringing Andrew Neil into it by saying it's the sort of thing he would have liked? Bloody, bloody stupid.
Watching that last night, I was struck by the reaction of the comedienne and Portillio who were both espousing free speech and the right to offend, and how that changed when Harriet Harman actually said something offensive. Andrew Neil couldn't tell her to shut up quick enough.
And this really was the point she was trying to make. They were discussing whether some jokes by comedians are acceptable and why some don't even realise that these things are offensive. So she has pointed out that is clearly offensive but was allowed to put in magazines (and which editors allowed) because they thought of it as 'harmless' fun. Basically what AN and MP were espousing is that 'mild' racist jokes are 'harmless' until the point someone carries out an atrocity that they can no longer be considered 'harmless'.
What I find interesting is the reaction of AN. From my experience those that angrily shut down an argument have just had a nerve pinched and things said were too close to the bone...
What was also mildly offensive was the overt right wing leaning of Andrew Neil. He fawned all over Edwin Curry, and consistently talked over and assisted the conservative attack on Harriet. I've noticed it before, and it's starting to become more and more blatant. Right wing dogma and opinion is given free uninterrupted airtime, rebuttals and challenges are obfuscated by the host to the point that the conservative guests don't even have to respond....
You know he joined the Conservative club when he was university, worked with Murdoch and was a founding chairmen in Sky TV. You'd get more impartiality by inviting Ed Milliband to report on the Tory party conference!
Now I’ve found it on YouTube I still don’t have a problem with what she said when repeating the joke, because you can’t seriously discuss things that are offensive and then dance around with euphemisms so that everyone is guessing what you’re talking about, particularly at 10pm well after the watershed. Like when Diane Abbott said ‘n—� b—�’ on TV when talking about abuse she receives. If she said ‘they called me bad words’ no one would take it seriously. If you’re offended, you should be, but don’t blame the person highlighting the issue.
But it was very rude of Harman to accuse Andrew Neil of liking that kind of joke, knowing he had not even the air time to respond, so no wonder he was not happy. Is there any evidence he’s found such material funny or acceptable in the past? I don’t think he angrily shut her down because it cut too close to him, but because he was smeared seconds before he had to wrap up the programme denying him a opportunity of response.
Because he has made what many would consider racist jokes to his friends in the past apparently?
Could I get a reliable source for this? Because I've just scanned his wiki page and found nothing except the fact that whilst he worked at the Times, they hired David Irving to make a translation. If he does actually casually make racist jokes all the time, perhaps there would be some merit to it, but so far I've been unable to find anything from googling various combinations of keywords.
What I find interesting is the reaction of AN. From my experience those that angrily shut down an argument have just had a nerve pinched and things said were too close to the bone...
Errr....no? It could just be that you're offended someone would say something to/about you, and you see no point in discussing it with them? Or it wouldn't be appropriate to do so in that place? Or several other reasons? You're kind of putting your own insinuation/spin on it there.
Except the current system doesn't either. Hardly anyone votes on what the local MP does and is dominated by Government politics. There may be a few exceptions but in the majority we don't have local representation in that way. You can easily have local representation in a PR system anyway. All you do is regionalise the PR system and then anyone of those MPs ca be you local representative. The advantage is that complaining about UC to your Tory MP that is IDS is about as useful as going swimming with lead lined trousers on, you wouldn't have that with a regionalised PR system because you can go and speak to the MP that more aligns with your political views.
This. The local MP for my home town is the minister of state for schools. He has done feth all to fix the issue of the schools of the area being underfunded relative to the national average.
Because he has made what many would consider racist jokes to his friends in the past apparently?
Could I get a reliable source for this? Because I've just scanned his wiki page and found nothing except the fact that whilst he worked at the Times, they hired David Irving to make a translation. If he does actually casually make racist jokes all the time, perhaps there would be some merit to it, but so far I've been unable to find anything from googling various combinations of keywords.
It depends on what you mean by reliable. Even papers like Private Eye, Guardian etc have their own political views and hence can end up distorting issues dependent on peoples views that are writing articles.
But here's one mention (and way before all this came to light)
Andrew Neil is not a racist. Not in any meaningful sense. He has been caught making a joke that in the mouths of others might be seen as proof of racism, but it was delivered to someone who probably considers him a friend, and in the company of friends we do get away with things that can look very damning when taken out of context. Andrew Neil is not, let me repeat, not a racist.
Errr....no? It could just be that you're offended someone would say something to/about you, and you see no point in discussing it with them? Or it wouldn't be appropriate to do so in that place? Or several other reasons? You're kind of putting your own insinuation/spin on it there.
In my experience there are two ways people deal with these types of accusations. Those where there is a kernel of truth to them tend to be more aggressive in their defence to try and push the boundaries well away from the tweaked nerve "how dare you suggest that" etc. Those that where the shot is miles off tend to take a more measured approach such as "It's unfortunate you think that, what things do you think I have said that makes you think this way?" It is unlikely he finds similar things 'funny' now, but in the past, well, I have my suspicions. And really that comes back to the point Harman was trying to make. Jokes that seem like 'a bit of fun' now (as was being argued on the other side) are and are later deemed deeply offensive.
Yeah, I found that, but discounted it because it's
a) a private blog, and
b) belongs to a politically active socialist. It's literally called 'Workers United' and has written several other blog posts trying to attack Neil before this even came out. He goes on about how 'Andrew Neil also thinks he is entitled to having his extreme Thatcherite prejudices shoved down the license fee payers throats,' and various other things.
I mean, I'll take the Guardian, Times, BBC, Reuters, FT, Independent, Economist, Private Eye, heck, I'll even take the Mail or Al Jazeera (with an appropriately large salt pinch). I'm just looking for details beyond half a rumour that he told a racist joke to a friend once. If you can give me something, then I can accept Harman's statement as something other than her using Holocaust jokes purely to one up a political commentator. Which would be disgusting and unacceptable.
I've tried, but within ten minutes of searching, I couldn't find anything, so I'm asking if you can stump up some sort of even quarter-credible source for it. Because if you can't, you're kind of doing the same thing as her by assuming that he totally goes around telling racist jokes with no evidence for that fact.
I think it'd be pretty difficult to find the kind of evidence you're describing because if it did exist, it's likely to be offline somewhere in the mists of time and memory, plus if it did exist it's unlikely that the BBC would have offered him any sort of work at all.
So, it's likely that there is no evidence at all, but perhaps Harriet knew something of his past? That's also unlikely.
However, my immediate impression when I watched this the first time and without analysing what was said too deeply at the time, was that she was attacking the "kind of things" that Neil and that other woman were defending, but from a different era when racism was more pronounced and extreme.
Obviously this came across poorly, and without time to explain, especially after being talked over and shut down again.
Personally I don't think Andrew Neil is an anti-semite, I also doubt he found these things funny in the past, but the issue was taking offence, and Harriet Harmon proved her point accidentally very well. The defenders of free speech, and attackers of those who take offense, got their knickers in a twist very quickly and proved that there is a line, it just varies with the person, and context.
r_squared wrote: I think it'd be pretty difficult to find the kind of evidence you're describing because if it did exist, it's likely to be offline somewhere in the mists of time and memory, plus if it did exist it's unlikely that the BBC would have offered him any sort of work at all.
So, it's likely that there is no evidence at all, but perhaps Harriet knew something of his past? That's also unlikely.
I dunno, you can still easily find scandals derived from overheard conversations in Gladstone's era. If there's actually something to it beyond 'I heard a rumour', there's usually a newspaper report on it somewhere. The press love a good scandal after all!
However, my immediate impression when I watched this the first time and without analysing what was said too deeply at the time, was that she was attacking the "kind of things" that Neil and that other woman were defending, but from a different era when racism was more pronounced and extreme.
Quite possibly. And I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with that. The problem is tacking on the personal oneupmanship. That's what turns something from a genuine point into something offensive.
I can say 'Slavery is bad', but the minute I add 'you absolute nobhead' onto the tail end of that statement, it becomes offensive, you know? Likewise, if I say, 'Holocaust jokes like this are bad', it's a fine sentiment, but when I add 'but I bet you like stuff like that, don't you?' to the tail-end, it immediately alters the dynamic of the conversation. It turns from the abstract to the personal, it changes from a discussion to an attack. And in a scenario like that, if there's really nothing more than rumour that McNeill tells nasty jokes (and let's be honest, there are rumours the sun still goes around the earth), he's perfectly within his rights to shut it down. You're invited on political talk shows to argue your own policies, not make personal attacks on the hosts.
That being said, this is all a storm in a teacup. I've heard worse jokes walking down the street, some of them are even funny at times (black humour is a thing), and this is just a politician attacking a political talk show host (not the first time). Not really anything worth getting riled up over, and certainly not worth the media storm. 'Harriet Harman says something mildly offensive to Andrew Neill' really isn't a headline involving much of importance to the world.
I've tried, but within ten minutes of searching, I couldn't find anything, so I'm asking if you can stump up some sort of even quarter-credible source for it. Because if you can't, you're kind of doing the same thing as her by assuming that he totally goes around telling racist jokes with no evidence for that fact.
Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around). However a couple of more recent ones of what he might consider OK but is actually racism from him:-
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolate hobnob'
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Whirlwind wrote: Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around).
So in other words, Harman was out of order, because there's about the same level of proof on that one as David Icke and the lizard people. Gotcha.
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolte hobnob'
A quick google on this one reveals that he was opening a show whilst talking about Gordon Brown's inability to name a biscuit. He then turned to the two people next to him (one was white and one was black) and said ""And here we have our very own chocolate HobNob and custard cream of late-night telly."
Given that he calls a white person a custard cream right next to the chocolate hobnob statement, I think only a moron would call that racist or take offence.
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Again, after a little investigation, the offence taken was that he mentioned 'Nigeria' and 'Email scammers' in the same breath of a joke, because the people making the complaints felt that associating the two together has to be based upon racism. Given that practically everyone on this forum discusses 'Nigerian scammers' and it's widely recognised as a colloquial phrase now for that type of scam, I'm not really seeing much to complain about.
If that's the worst the man ever says, I'm sure he'll get the bends after dying he'll ascend so fast.
Whirlwind wrote: Unfortunately the internet was not freely available 20-30 years ago so records are more sketchy from back then and will hence be more of word of mouth (unless someone happens to keep copies of the papers from the 70s lying around).
So in other words, Harman was out of order, because there's about the same level of proof on that one as David Icke and the lizard people. Gotcha.
No just that the evidence is not as easily available on the internet for people like us to look over. I'm sure Harman knew why she was saying these things (and she hasn't apologised which makes me even further believe that she accepts what she said) because we don't here have access to microfiche readers and the archived information does not mean it doesn't exist. Just that it is not easily available for us here behind computer screens to get access to it. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist however...
22nd October 2009 - Referred to Diane Abbott as a 'chocolte hobnob'
A quick google on this one reveals that he was opening a show whilst talking about Gordon Brown's inability to name a biscuit. He then turned to the two people next to him (one was white and one was black) and said ""And here we have our very own chocolate HobNob and custard cream of late-night telly."
Given that he calls a white person a custard cream right next to the chocolate hobnob statement, I think only a moron would call that racist or take offence.
6th December 2012 - Made a joke referring to Nigerians and email scams
Again, after a little investigation, the offence taken was that he mentioned 'Nigeria' and 'Email scammers' in the same breath of a joke, because the people making the complaints felt that associating the two together has to be based upon racism. Given that practically everyone on this forum discusses 'Nigerian scammers' and it's widely recognised as a colloquial phrase now for that type of scam, I'm not really seeing much to complain about.
To be honest I'm not really surprised you'd say this. Yes they were 'jokes' at the expense of the current news but that doesn't make them not racist from other peoples perspective. Indeed you are rather eloquently making the point HH was making. That some 'jokes' at different times are deemed 'OK' doesn't actually make them any more insulting to certain parts of society. Do all email scammers come from Nigeria? Do we know that? What makes it acceptable to point out Nigerians as the source of email scams, is this not insulting to a group of people simply because of their race? Just because it is a colloquial statement doesn't make it correct to use, it is just an argument for continuing a type of soft racism along the lines "that it's OK we mean no harm". Should you not as a Mod really be recognising this and correcting people to just use "email scammers" rather than seeing it as acceptable? What if the jokes reference was changed to "jewish email scammers" because of where some originated - this would be unacceptable but "Nigerian email scammers" is OK?
As for the biscuits he was specifically highlighting and making a jokes out of people based on their skin colour so it can be deemed offensive. People did complain and did take offence at the joke (to the point they pulled the next week's show); they are not 'morons' for feeling that the joke is inappropriate (that just implies a lack of empathy as to how some people might view such a joke). He could quite have easily have said digestive vs hobnob. Instead he chose two that specifically highlighted differences in skin colour hence implying a racially motivated joke undertone.
But this is by the by, HH was commenting on an old 'joke' that was racially insensitive at best and is in reality downright obnoxious; she claimed that AN would have found such racially motivated jokes funny in the past. You asked for evidence he did and I've provided it with the above jokes he made on TV. So in fact she was correct in her statement.
Yes they were 'jokes' at the expense of the current news but that doesn't make them not racist from other peoples perspective.
Almost everything seems to offend someone somewhere. It’s doesnt mean you can legitimately characterise it as racist. I don’t recall Diane Abbott taking issue with the chocolate hobnob comment, surely if she isn’t bothered then it pretty much ends there. On the matter of Nigerian scams, well a hell of a lot of email scams come from Nigeria, that’s true not racist. Trying to use either of those examples as arguments for Andrew Neil finding holocaust jokes about fitting Jews into ashtrays it a colossal stretch. Maybe Harriet Harman knows more, but someone is going to have to come up with the goods.
No just that the evidence is not as easily available on the internet for people like us to look over.
I ran the keywords into historical news archives. I got nothing. Internet be damned, there's literally nothing published. Even David Icke gives sources (if badly). You could claim literally anything with this level of evidence.
I could, for example, claim that you are Harriet Harman.
As for the biscuits he was specifically highlighting and making a jokes out of people based on their skin colour so it can be deemed offensive.
This, I think, underlines the obvious counterpoint to that you've made above. Namely that somebody taking offence at a statement does not, in and of itself, make a statement offensive. What matters is the intent, context, and content, combined with the greater ethical subjectivity as perceived by society. I'm reasonably confident in asserting that the overwhelming majority of people would be unlikely to find this joke racist/offensive in this context(after all, part of the joke is calling a white person a biscuit as well), and therefore it isn't offensive.
We can keep arguing this one if you like, but we're going to start moving into the realms of the philosophy of ethics pretty damn fast. So you'll want to start a new thread for it.
she claimed that AN would have found such racially motivated jokes funny in the past. You asked for evidence he did and I've provided it with the above jokes he made on TV. So in fact she was correct in her statement.
You have a very strange definition of 'racially motivated'. To take the biscuit example, the reason the joke was quite clearly made was clearly because he was looking for joke statements (to get a laugh) and biscuit analogies (to play on current events). There is no 'racial motivation'. A motivation is by its very definition, the reason for which somebody says or does something. For his joke to be racially motivated, one would have to assume that Neill is a) racist, and b) consequently looking for ways in which he could bring race into his jokes.
For which, there is not a jot of evidence. Once again, your statements actually reveal you to be putting your own spin on things to try and attack Neill. Why I've no idea. I'm not exactly fond of the man myself, he's an overblown overrated commentator. But you seem awfully credulous and willing to believe the worst of him with virtually no evidence of any kind. It's quite bizare.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Is this what British politics has come to? Outrage over people being compared to biscuits on a comedy show?
I wish it was as harmless and banal as that. Sadly the current state of our politics is a whirling shitstorm of confusion, lies, outrage, and good old fashioned incompetence. I just wish I could see an end in sight, but I can't.
As an example, I was called a traitor, and it was suggested that I should reflect on my oath of alleigance for voicing the opinion that I thought that leaving the EU to WTO rules was not the best idea. If I wasn't controlling the urge to punch the [gentleman] in the fething mouth, I might have suggested politely that they feth off. As it happened my boss heard, stepped in and deflected rather brilliantly, and suggested we move elsewhere.
This was during a polite morning coffee, not after an evening power drinking turbo-shandies.
It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.
Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.
As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?
I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.
Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...
I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.
She does and she doesn't: "The Queen is not legally required to pay tax, however she has voluntarily been paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1992."
It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.
Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.
As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?
I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.
Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...
I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.
From what I read this was from her private earnings (i.e. revenue from the business activities of the royal estates), not part of the government funding to the monarchy and also sounds like this was investments made by the fund managers as part of a portfolio (i.e. no-one in the royal household instructed them to invest this way, they just placed the money with an investment firm with a "diversified" portfolio, some of which ended up here). A tad embarrassing, but not a major scandal IMHO, particularly when the amounts are pretty small in relation to her overall earnings and this type of investment is legal, even if unpopular.
It takes years to build a reputation, seconds to lose it, as the saying goes.
Most of the world's tax havens are British overseas territories. Now we know why they've been reluctant to act.
As far as I am aware the Queen does not have to pay tax?
I may be wrong, but I think that since the days of George V, the monarch has always paid a token amount to show solidarity with the nation, even though they don't have too. George V started it because it was obviously WW1 and we needed every penny.
Plus, Queen Elizabeth's involvement seems to concern dodgy investments, and seeing as she receives a large wad of cash from the British taxpayer every year, questions need to be asked...
I could be wrong, but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.
From what I read this was from her private earnings (i.e. revenue from the business activities of the royal estates), not part of the government funding to the monarchy and also sounds like this was investments made by the fund managers as part of a portfolio (i.e. no-one in the royal household instructed them to invest this way, they just placed the money with an investment firm with a "diversified" portfolio, some of which ended up here). A tad embarrassing, but not a major scandal IMHO, particularly when the amounts are pretty small in relation to her overall earnings and this type of investment is legal, even if unpopular.
People forget that the Queen's 'private earnings' have been built on centuries of grabbing wealth, land, and power from the British people.
I always find it amusing when people talk about the Queen's 'hard work' and 'devotion to duty.'
It's the least she can do after being handed a life of wealth and privilege since birth.
Since she is doing that least, maybe you could accept the point and move on.
There are far more interesting revelations about people connected to a certain US president -- not to be discussed here, of course! -- and Lord Ashcroft.
You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?
Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Since she is doing that least, maybe you could accept the point and move on.
There are far more interesting revelations about people connected to a certain US president -- not to be discussed here, of course! -- and Lord Ashcroft.
This is 2017, not 117. It's a mockery and an affront to our democracy that we still have this charade of an unelected head of state.
But yes, you're right about a certain US president, which is also a disgrace, but no surprise. The American people can fix their own problems, it's Britain that concerns me.
On 28 January 2016 the Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.
In order to provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures the Commission presented its proposalSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• on 25th October 2016, to complement the existing rule on hybrid mismatches. The rule on hybrid mismatches aims to prevent companies from exploiting national mismatches to avoid taxation.
In addition to the proposal the Commission also published its Staff Working DocumentSearch for available translations of the preceding link•••.
The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.
Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.
It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.
Supply chains across Britain and the EU appear to be splitting apart, with companies betting that trade barriers will materialise after Brexit.
In a survey of more than 1,000 supply chain managers across the UK and continental Europe, the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply found that a fifth of UK companies involved in supply chains have struggled to secure contracts that run after March 2019.
Some 63 per cent of EU27 supply chain managers who work with UK suppliers said they expected to move some of their supply chain out of Britain as a result of Brexit and 40 per cent of UK companies said they are looking to replace their EU suppliers. McLaren, the advanced automotive group, is one company that has already announced such a move.
Splitting existing supply chains on both sides of the channel is likely to raise costs and reduce efficiency and will be particularly important in complicated manufacturing sectors such as the automotive sector.
The survey will add to pressure on the UK to quickly secure a deal on a transition period after Brexit, to give companies visibility about the future.
Philip Hammond, chancellor, has called a transition deal a “wasting asset” because as time passes, companies will have put their contingency plans into operation.
The Cips said that the number of EU27 companies seeking to avoid UK suppliers had increased from 44 per cent in May and reflected the deadlock in Brexit negotiations which led them to worry that free and frictionless trade after 2019 would disappear.
Gerry Walsh, the chief executive of Cips, said: “The Brexit negotiating teams promise that progress will be made soon, but it is already too late for scores of businesses who look like they will be deserted by their European partners”.
“The success of the negotiations should not be measured on the final deal only but on how quickly both sides can provide certainty. The clock is ticking.”
The survey found that more than a third of companies said they were unable to prepare for Brexit because of uncertainty over the future trading relationship between the two sides. Only 14 per cent of UK companies with EU suppliers felt they were sufficiently prepared for Brexit.
Any significant change in the economic geography of the UK economy and its supply chains is likely to require adjustments that will take time and slow the economy, the Bank of England has said, because it will involve some redundancies of plant and equipment until new opportunities arise.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Is this what British politics has come to? Outrage over people being compared to biscuits on a comedy show?
Come on, keep up, these incidents were said years ago. But I'll refresh the topic. This all starts with HH repeating a joke about Jewish on a politics show. Here she claimed that such jokes were deemed funny in decades past and claimed that Andrew Neil had found such jokes funny in the past (not necessarily this specific one). HH argument was that offensive things said in jest in the past that were deemed OK but there were people out there that found them offensive (regardless of whether the people saying them or laughing at them were only doing it out of having some entertainment) but in the end is a type of 'soft' racism. The argument really moved on from whether it was acceptable to repeat the joke to more whether AN has actually ever used soft racist jokes in the past. Which he has in the relative recent past (after a few minutes searching), one making a joke about comparing something to Nigerian email scammers (not all Nigerians are email scammers) and the second referencing a colour of biscuits to two individuals (Diane Abbott to chocolate hob nob, and Portillo to a custard cream) - it's not appropriate to identify someone by their skin colour. Both have race or colour undertones. And there were people that were offended about these statements (and on public record saying so).
In effect then this is exactly what HH was saying, AN used a joke with embedded 'soft' racism (although no intent was there to cause harm) it did cause offence. The difference today is that people are more willing to speak up. Hence HH is correct in saying that AN would have found jokes like these funny in the past as he has used them. However what happened on here is that they effectively 'don't really count' because they were just 'jokes' at the expense of the news and some individuals. There is no difference then to what some (and probably most given the times) would have said 20-30 years ago when referring to the earlier joke HH stated. In 20 years when we look back and go 'well that was because it was OK then' effectively results in us just repeating the same mistakes and some acting in denial as to the offense these things can cause to some groups of people (even if the person saying them didn't actually mean anything 'hurtful'). Hence HH was correct then and there are examples in the public eye where AN has joked about such issues.
Of course that will mean the populace as whole will be shafted whilst the rich get wealthier. Of course we could stay in the EU, at least they are trying to do something about tie up tax loop holes. Of course UK regions in this case legislated to try and get around it. But then I'm confused I thought all our laws were controlled by the EU?
Edit:- This is a ludicrous line of argument to be pursuing, so I'm actually going to erase my last comment and leave it there. Suffice to say Whirlwind, I think you and I have some exceptionally fundamental disagreements about the definition of the word 'racism'.
Meanwhile, with regards to the Queen, she doesn't manage her portfolio, someone else does it for her. So I'm not too fagged that a few million of her estate was squirrelled away somewhere abroad in a shell company. It's more the fatalistic 'Oh, if we change the tax rules to curb evasion, the evaders will just find another way around it' mentality I keep reading from government and commentators that annoys me. By that sort of pathetic logic, we should never even try to tax rich people at all.
If they move their money to evade tax, identify the bolthole and chase it. Make a half hour timeslot in Parliament for passing legislation which closes these avenues four times a year if necessary. We're literally losing billions and billions of pounds here, I don't think a lack of time/manpower and a vague sense of fatalism should be impeding the state on this. Set up a sub-division of the Treasury to chase it if necessary, I'm sure we'll easily recoup whatever we pay out in wages and several billion besides.
When the upper levels of successive governments of all stripes are full of people who are members of/married to/best mates with the 1% its no surprise that these tax "loopholes" are left open.
I wonder if she has any sort of grounds to sue Johnson, or whether there are any criminal charges involved in making false statements which result in people getting extended prison sentences.
I'd really hope he'd be doing his job and trying to get Iran to release her anyway, especially since apparently she hasn't even been told what her crime was yet.
I wonder if she has any sort of grounds to sue Johnson, or whether there are any criminal charges involved in making false statements which result in people getting extended prison sentences.
I'd really hope he'd be doing his job and trying to get Iran to release her anyway, especially since apparently she hasn't even been told what her crime was yet.
Um...how can see sue Bojo if she's languishing in a foreign jail, and let's not forget that Anglo-Iran relations are not exactly friendly these days, if they ever were.
But yeah, Bojo is a complete buffoon with his loose talk.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?
Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.
And has, by virtue of being born, surrendered the right to accumulate any more wealth than the government gives her through the accumulation of estates:
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw [/youtube]
Effectively, we have a royal family on welfare because their assets in the 1700s were confiscated to pay bankruptcy debts. I can't help but wonder if this had some effect on King George mk 3 's decisions Re:America, and if they hadn't been put on welfare, the colonies would still be colonial.
Ketara wrote: Edit:- This is a ludicrous line of argument to be pursuing, so I'm actually going to erase my last comment and leave it there. Suffice to say Whirlwind, I think you and I have some exceptionally fundamental disagreements about the definition of the word 'racism'.
Meanwhile, with regards to the Queen, she doesn't manage her portfolio, someone else does it for her. So I'm not too fagged that a few million of her estate was squirrelled away somewhere abroad in a shell company. It's more the fatalistic 'Oh, if we change the tax rules to curb evasion, the evaders will just find another way around it' mentality I keep reading from government and commentators that annoys me. By that sort of pathetic logic, we should never even try to tax rich people at all.
If they move their money to evade tax, identify the bolthole and chase it. Make a half hour timeslot in Parliament for passing legislation which closes these avenues four times a year if necessary. We're literally losing billions and billions of pounds here, I don't think a lack of time/manpower and a vague sense of fatalism should be impeding the state on this. Set up a sub-division of the Treasury to chase it if necessary, I'm sure we'll easily recoup whatever we pay out in wages and several billion besides.
Yeah, for sure, the Queen doesn't manage her portfolio, but ultimately, the buck stops with her. She may not know where every penny is going, but it's her duty to ask where her money goes and why it went there.
My avatar wasn't responsible for making sure that every individual Tommy in his army group had enough ammo for the battles, that was the NCOs and the junior officers' job, but it was damn well Monty's job to make sure enough ammo arrived in the first place!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You realize you're leaving yourself wide open for the argument that the same is true of Britain vis-a-vis much of the world by using that argument, yes?
Yes, I'm aware of the irony, but what happened in 1717 is history. The Queen, in 2017, which is now, is still taking our tax money, and the only rational for this is that she emerged from a particular vagina when she was born.
And has, by virtue of being born, surrendered the right to accumulate any more wealth than the government gives her through the accumulation of estates:
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw [/youtube]
Effectively, we have a royal family on welfare because their assets in the 1700s were confiscated to pay bankruptcy debts. I can't help but wonder if this had some effect on King George mk 3 's decisions Re:America, and if they hadn't been put on welfare, the colonies would still be colonial.
The Queen's not exactly on £80 a week dole money though, is she!
She's still raking in vast sums of loot, often in the millions!
Yeah, for sure, the Queen doesn't manage her portfolio, but ultimately, the buck stops with her. She may not know where every penny is going, but it's her duty to ask where her money goes and why it went there.
Should she also check that every food item entering the palace was make in a clean environment where all workers rights are satisfied? That none of the paint bought for the palace is lead free? That every staff member are getting breaks on time? That the PAT testing has been done for every appliance?
No. She has delegates she trusts to do that management (same as Monty and ammo). Sure, she's entitled to ask for a breakdown of her investments, but she's also perfectly entitlted to leave the details to her investment managers. There may even be a few levels of indirection, like her manager has invested some money in a 50/50 fund or a FTSE100 or something, of which that fund has some offshoring.
As already pointed out, none of this seems to be illegal, and HRH isn't under any actual obligation to pay tax anyway, so can't really be accused of tax evasion.
And of course the queen is a vitural 'prisioner' as her every move out side of her residence is strictly controlled and monitored. Hell she would have to ask permission to go to the coner shop (if she ever did). She is under vertual house arrest and has been scince birth, i wouldnt like the lack of freedom, even if payed a fortune.
Exactly, the Queen has absolutely minimal freedom - she's accompanies everywhere, most of her calendar is pre-determined by political gak, and her every action as well as that of her entire family, is reported by the press. She can't just pop into Mcdonalds, or go on holiday, or go to the bingo. She's well looked after, but you're right about the virtual house arrest.
I always wondered if she was likely to go out in disguise, or get someone to smuggle her in big macs or kebabs. After all that posh dining I'd be desperate for some junk food.
I sure as feth wouldn't want to be any of the Royal family, no matter how much they made. I quite enjoy being able to make a fool of myself without anyone caring
The Queen's not exactly on £80 a week dole money though, is she!
She's still raking in vast sums of loot, often in the millions!
But still only 20% of that her estate generates. Her estates pay more tax (as a percentage) than (I assume) any other UK entity. No-one else is giving 80% of their profits to the state.
I really cannot grasp how you regard the Queens finances as a bad thing. Should she be forced to live in 1-bed council house and live off of beans on toast?
The UK minister formerly in charge of anti-money laundering has been named in the Paradise Papers leak
The man formerly in charge of anti-money laundering has been named in the so-called "Paradise Papers" leak of documents stolen from an offshore law firm.
Lord Sassoon served as President of the UK's Financial Action Task Force between 2007 and 2008, which combats money laundering and terrorist financing.
Sassoon was one beneficiary of a family trust worth millions and registered to an offshore secrecy jurisdiction. He says the UK tax authorities were aware of this, and he has not benefited from the trust in years.
LONDON — The man formerly in charge of anti-money laundering in the UK has been named in the Paradise Papers leak as a beneficiary of an offshore trust.
According to documents found in the International Consortium of Journalists' (ICIJ) Paradise Papers database, James Meyers Sassoon, who served as President of the UK's Financial Action Task Force between 2007 and 2008, is the beneficiary of a Cayman Island trust fund called DCR Herschorn Settlement.
On Sunday, more than 13 million documents that detail the complex financial arrangements of some of the world's richest individuals were leaked. The documents, dubbed the "Paradise Papers," were stolen from offshore law firm Appleby in a cyber attack last year, and shared with the ICIJ.
As President of the Task Force, Sassoon was in charge of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. He has also been a defender of legal tax avoidance (as opposed to illegal evasion), having said in 2010 that minimizing tax payments "is perfectly reasonable."
Sassoon, now a member of the House of Lords, was also the Treasury commercial secretary from 2010 to 2013, and was responsible for overseeing economic productivity and industrial strategy.
The fund was established by Sassoon's grandmother several decades ago, and originally operated under Bahamian law, (the Bahamas are also considered an offshore secrecy jurisdiction). Documents show the trust owns Orchard Limited, an investment holding company registered in the Bahamas, which held $124 million in 2002, according to financial statements. By 2007 it was holding $236 million, and the same year distributed $8 million to beneficiaries, records show.
By 2002, the trust had employed "Big Four" accountancy firm Deloitte to advise it on tax matters.
In 2008, documents show, a fax from Sassoon's father to an Appleby administrator showed Deloitte warned that UK taxpayers could be liable for UK taxes on more than $14 million of the funds if they were withdrawn.
Sassoon told the ICIJ the trust fund had been established by his grandmother 60 years ago for multiple family beneficiaries, including non-UK residents. He said it also included non-UK assets not liable for UK taxes. Given this, and that the trust had been established offshore to begin with, Sassoon told the ICIJ there was "no question of assets having been 'moved offshore.'"
He said UK tax authorities were aware of the settlement and its management company. "Where UK domiciled individuals have received any benefit from the settlement, that has been disclosed in the normal way and any tax due has been paid," Sassoon told the ICIJ.
"I have not received any benefit from the trust for more than 25 years." He also said he had disclosed his potential interest in the trust when he joined the Treasury in 2002.
Appleby has denied allegations of wrongdoing, and said it does not tolerate "illegal behaviour."
uh huh.
Iran there using the Foreign Sec's own words.
... I figure May can't even sack him, her position isn't strong enough.
May's spokesman tells me the PM didn't know about Priti Patel's meeting with the Israeli PM until Friday, three months after it took place.
can't sack her either then ?
May currently has a foreign secretary and an international development secretary conducting an independent foreign policy.
The problem is not illegal behaviour, it is that the authorities have allowed this kind of behaviour (e.g. Lewis Hamilton's VAT refund for his private jet) to be legal.
Boris indignantly refusing to apologise and, to boot, has just claimed in parliament that his words have nothing to do with what is happening to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is not illegal behaviour, it is that the authorities have allowed this kind of behaviour (e.g. Lewis Hamilton's VAT refund for his private jet) to be legal.
Aye. You see one statement repeated over and over with every fresh revelation from people's spokesmen. Namely 'Everything is perfectly legal'. Which is, in and of itself, the problem. It's legal for the richest people not to pay any tax.
Yes indeed. My head was spinning by the end of the explanatin of Lewis Hamilton's jet.
His company in the British Virgin Isles bought it then leased it to his company somewhere else. This second company then leased it to a third company which provides his servicing and crew. Hamilton then rented it back at an inflated rate. In end, Hamilton was able to land it in the Isle of Man, claim £3.5 million refund of VAT, and fly all around Europe and the rest of the world.
I don't understand what the IoM got out of all this, and I don't understand why all of us ordinary people can't form similar Human Caterpillars of companies and lease our own houes, cars and clothes to each other to save the VAT.
Maybe we can? Maybe we should start doing that and watch the country spin down the plughole under the lack of taxes.
Isn't it traditional at this point for someone to point out that the top 10% pay more tax than the bottom 50% or something?
