Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.
A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.
It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.
Guv, believe me when I say I understand the basic concept of interpreting data to reach a conclusion.
Just accept that claiming that a few polls (I counted four) of around 2,000 people each (that's what they are) done in specific geographic locales (one was only in the North of England, for example) are a terrible set of data points to try and make any serious inferences regarding the changing moods of some 45 million people across an entire nation over the last several months; and any "expert" (as you put it) would collapse laughing at anyone who tried. There's a reason the results contradict even each other, you know?
Looking at the "expert" thing you put in quote marks though (to hearken back to that dumb Gove comment about "not needing experts", link what I'm saying to it, and thus dismiss me), I'm really not entirely sure why you feel this compulsive need to keep trying to slip little put downs inside your posts to me. I tried to get you to explain one when you last tried to argue with me, and you refused to even acknowedge you'd done it, let alone apologise for it. I could roll with it if we'd been debating for several posts and were getting tetchy with each other (it happens, and I'm as guilty as anyone there), but just shooting attitude out of the blue? Makes you look like a bit of a spanker, mate.
Could you do me a favour and just talk to me in a polite and friendly fashion? I can deal with the whole 'needing to argue compulsively over every little thing' aspect, but I really can't be bothered to deal with people who lack the basic manners to engage with me in a forthright, polite, and above all, well-intentioned way. Seriously guv, we're in the OT on a toy soldiers forum. Play nicely or find something better to do with your hours.
If you agree to the same, then done deal. The only reason for that remark was this comment of yours:
Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.
I agree with you that this thread can do without petty remarks like these.
Back to the question, I have a degree in Economics, of which statistics is a major part of, and there's a simple formula to calculate the needed sample size for a given stdev and confidence interval.
For 5%-95% for a population of 45 million the required sample size is approximately 385 people. A 2.000 people survey is more than adequate for a binary question such as Brexit if the sample is properly chosen.
I'm not re-writing history. When did I ever say it was going to be easy? :.
Until the sudden crashing weight of actual reality came into play, practically all your posts -- well the ones that weren't ref'ing to Chirchill or Brunel or whatever, was berating people for not believing and saying how well things were going.
I'm not backtracking on Brexit - I'm still fully committed to it.
We know. You're backtracking on how hard it'll be. You implied it was simple from the start and until very recently, and now you claim you always claimed it was hard.
You're not alone, most of team Brexit made statements about how simple it was until they started to realise what a gakshow they'd signed up for.
If you agree to the same, then done deal. The only reason for that remark was this comment of yours:
Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.
I agree with you that this thread can do without petty remarks like these.
You read that as a petty remark? It wasn't intended as one. Heh. Just goes to show that text based communication is always dicey.
Glad to see we could claw it back though. I hate it when topics get dragged off by personal sniping. It's always a risk in topics like this, heck, I'm probably guilty of having done it myself on occasion, but I try and remember that we're all grown men on a toy soldiers forum.
Back on topic, the population of the United Kingdom is well above 45 million (we're heading to break the 70 million shortly), I threw out 45 million because that's roughly the number of people who voted in the referendum. And the phrase 'sample is properly chosen' illustrates precisely why the handful of existing polls done are relatively worthless in trying to answer with any degree of certainty such a broad brush question as 'Have people's minds changed on brexit'. You have to make sure the question was chosen correctly. You have to make sure that you're not polling a poorer or richer area, an area with a higher or lower degree of education, an area with a higher or lower proportion of people who already voted a certain way, that your method of polling does not exclude certain categories of people, and so on.
The evidence is really in the pudding.
The Independent polled 1,400 people. Got a 2% switch in favour of Remain.
Yougov have done several polls which superficially indicate anything up to a 10% opposition to turning against Brexit, but bluntly state more detail in the answers show about 52% back Brexit, but just want different types (which skews the stats)
The Independent polled 1,400 people again two months later. Got a switch of 4% to favour Remain.
Policy North did a poll of 2,000 people (in the North East), and found that Brexit had increased in popularity, with 57% now backing it.
The express and star did a poll of their readers and recorded a 10% shift in favour of Remain.
Survation meanwhile, when asking three times if people would prefer a hard or soft brexit, have seen more and more people stop wanting a soft brexit and moving to 'undecided' whilst the number wanting a hard one have remained practically unaltered.
I could go on, but I think the point is made. For the record, I think that it is likely that there has probably been a minor shift (maybe 2% or so) in favour of Remain, because that's inevitable when people are barraged by negative news. But for the most part, I think those who cared enough to vote are more or less sticking to their positions, and judging by the wild variation of existing polls, there's certainly no real evidence to say one way or the other.
It's also worth noting that a lot of these surveys probably took place in London, which voted Remain.
Personally, I think we would be in a much better place if we didn't have a snap election. But then how many people would be complaining about unelected PMs?
The very fact that it's so difficult to leave the EU, is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
The very fact it's so difficult to build a fission reactor in your back garden is proof, if any were needed, that it was the right thing to do.
Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. For an easy example which everyone can try at home, try to open a pull door by pushing it.
I'm glad someone pointed out the silliest statement of the week. As on the earlier thinking, that walking through a closed door, because it is difficult, is the right thing to do....
It's a squeaky voice teenager picking a fight with a Gang of Bikers to prove how well 'ard he is.
This is a fools errand. Why can't you just admit that?
Ready ourselves for the 21st Century by regressing back to the 1950's?
DINLT votes Remain = Brexit
DINLT votes Leave = Brexit
DINLT doesn't vote = Brexit
Everybody on dakka votes Remain = Brexit.
etc etc etc
Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter what anybody on dakka thinks. Naturally of course, it's enjoyable to have conversations on a wide range of issues, but you're mistaking me for somebody who had 17 million vote on June 23rd, instead of the 1 vote.
That's not really correct at all, because it is places like these where grass root notions start and which can change things for the better. We may only have one vote but our voices and arguments can be heard by a lot more.
Back to the question, I have a degree in Economics, of which statistics is a major part of, and there's a simple formula to calculate the needed sample size for a given stdev and confidence interval.
For 5%-95% for a population of 45 million the required sample size is approximately 385 people. A 2.000 people survey is more than adequate for a binary question such as Brexit if the sample is properly chosen.
The problem is that this works on the assumption that there is only 'white noise', as in any statistical variation is due purely statistical variation (a point largely lost on folks analysis that the referendum result is the actual reflection of the view of the population). However statistical surveys are rarely (if ever), just about random statistical noise and there is usually 'red noise' or instrumentation noise which can be due to how samples are taken, who chooses the sample, who are regular visitors to the survey location (a telephone landline poll is likely to catch more people out of work/old than an internet survey for example).
You can't simply use one poll as an indicator as we don't know the biases inherent in the selection of the sample. However we can use the trends in the surveys to indicate the direction of travel and least an approximate distribution of peoples views on certain elements (and how volatile). So strictly speaking you are both right and both wrong.
Back on topic, the population of the United Kingdom is well above 45 million (we're heading to break the 70 million shortly), I threw out 45 million because that's roughly the number of people who voted in the referendum.
Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.
Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.
Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.
The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.
Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.
Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.
The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.
But then it isn't 95-5 because it isn't representative and you get a skewed result. Even a 1000 isn't really representative because it fails to take into account the probability that you have sampled (even from a non-skewed sample) something that doesn't represent the median value. For example you can run monte-carlo simulations to determine how likely given the sample size you have picked is a result of an in representative sample. It is actually higher than these types of equations really imply. They give you an answer in a perfectly randomly distributed world. They fall down because it is rarely (if ever) the case.
Not quite, the total eligible electorate was 46m, 33m turned out to vote.
Doesn't really matter. In a hypothetical 150 million voter UK the number for 95-5 is still 385.
The iffy part about this is making those 385 representative: geographically, socially, by age groups etc, which is why most national electoral polls usually run in the magic 1.000 number... Even in the US with a much larger electorate.
But then it isn't 95-5 because it isn't representative and you get a skewed result. Even a 1000 isn't really representative because it fails to take into account the probability that you have sampled (even from a non-skewed sample) something that doesn't represent the median value. For example you can run monte-carlo simulations to determine how likely given the sample size you have picked is a result of an in representative sample. It is actually higher than these types of equations really imply. They give you an answer in a perfectly randomly distributed world. They fall down because it is rarely (if ever) the case.
That's why sampling is the most difficult step of the whole thing.
Big data is radically changing the way these things are done right now under our noses and there are developments almost daily. But that's outside the scope of this thread.
Of course there's a secondary effect and that's that polls are by itself an electoral weapon, and parties have been known to release one poll while keeping a different one under wraps (with a different cooking formula) for electoral purposes.
A poll done with a valid statistical survey based on the most carefully selected sample doesn't give an accurate picture of the final result. It gives you a confidence interval and margin of error. For example, 95% confidence that the result will be within 2% of 50% (and therefore 5% chance that it will be more than 2% either way. That's why we have to have a real poll to get an actual result!
This is why the arguments that we should/should not have a second referendum because the polls show X are pointless on both sides.
We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.
There wasn't any clear picture of what "Leave" actually meant. It could mean joining the EEA or EFTA, or staying in the customs union, or a special deal like Switzerland, or NI staying in the customs union and an internal border, or no deal and reverting to WTO rules, or a Canada style deal, or the "special deal" that the Brexiteers are aiming for, which hasn't been defined at all.
This is complete bs. The government is in a shambles and has no idea what they are doing or what they want. They have no idea what the nation wants. The opposition isn't much better -- Labour have no idea what they want to support or oppose. The nation as a whole has no idea what it wants.
Once the deal is clear, and people know the real choices on offer, then they MUST have a chance to vote on them. At this stage it becomes necessary to assume that people might have changed their minds enough to want to stay in the EU, and there should be two options on the ballot paper.
We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.
Strictly speaking there must be a third and fourth and so on until the population is so for or against the decision that it is no longer valid to continue. The UK government ceded it's desire to make this decision, but democracy is not about one or the second chance of voting. It is about giving the population a continued say. By calling a referendum the UK government decided that this issue was best decided by the populace which means we should have an election on the issue every 5 years (probably at the same time as the GE so the incoming government knows what they want).
Yes I believe that another vote will probably swing to the Remain, yes I think it is best for the country and the populace both now and in the future. However it's unlikely to by a huge margin and the arguments will remain, the divisions will continue. The only way to solve that is to ensure people can be confident that their voices continue to heard. Until the point when one side or the other is so dominant that it is a pointless exercise (so 70%+).
Regardless of which side you are on we should not be content with "we got what we want" now lets move on and ignore that the populace may change its views over time.
We MUST have a second referendum because the first one was interpreted as binding and giving a clear decision on what people wanted. AND IT WASN"T. A lot of assumptions have been made based (ironically) on polling about immigration and so on.
Strictly speaking there must be a third and fourth and so on until the population is so for or against the decision that it is no longer valid to continue. The UK government ceded it's desire to make this decision, but democracy is not about one or the second chance of voting. It is about giving the population a continued say. By calling a referendum the UK government decided that this issue was best decided by the populace which means we should have an election on the issue every 5 years (probably at the same time as the GE so the incoming government knows what they want).
Yes I believe that another vote will probably swing to the Remain, yes I think it is best for the country and the populace both now and in the future. However it's unlikely to by a huge margin and the arguments will remain, the divisions will continue. The only way to solve that is to ensure people can be confident that their voices continue to heard. Until the point when one side or the other is so dominant that it is a pointless exercise (so 70%+).
Regardless of which side you are on we should not be content with "we got what we want" now lets move on and ignore that the populace may change its views over time.
This is true, of course, however continued membership of the EU also allows the population to express their opinions about the EU by voting in EUP elections as well as domestic elections.
Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!
Ketara wrote: Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!
I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.
Ketara wrote: Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!
They cover: Agriculture & Fisheries, Budget, Citizens' Rights, Development, Economic & Monetary Affairs, Employment & Social Affairs, European Parliament, Industry, Research & Energy, Internal Market & Consumer Protection, Regional Policy, Science, Trade, United Kingdom - Ireland Relations, and the United Kingdom. Although be warned:
The European Parliament has commissioned dozens of impact assessments or studies on Brexit from experts, across a broad range of policy areas, which are publicly available online. This webpage will be regularly updated to include further relevant publications.
The opinions expressed in these documents are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament.
This is from a bloke who was helping Corbyn run his last election campaign and spent a lot of time with him at Stop the War. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he's a big fan of Soviet Russia and North Korea.
It should also be borne in mind this little interview from before(which is referred to in Goatboy's post above):-
The Labour leader appeared to leave the door open for Mr Galloway rejoining the party in an interview last December.
Asked by the Huffington Post whether it was on the cards, Mr Corbyn said: "There is a five year rule. If he applies in five years’ time, it goes to the National Executive. They decide, not me."
Pressed on whether he would personally be opposed to him re-joining, the party leader said: "Let them decide."
I find it interesting that when asked whether he personally thought Galloway should be re-admitted aside from who had the power, he refused to give an opinion. Given Galloway's history, that's a bit like May refusing to answer when asked if she personally thought a reincarnated Oswald Mosley should be allowed to join the Tories. I don't think they'll actually allow Galloway to rejoin, but the anti-semitic and generally vile people *coughseamusmilnecough*which Corbyn seems happy to have lurking in his shadow do keep cropping up quite regularly. They have the effect of deterring me from going anywhere near the Labour party these days, that's for sure.
I think old Vince will likely get my vote next election.
I find it interesting that when asked whether he personally thought Galloway should be re-admitted aside from who had the power, he refused to give an opinion. Given Galloway's history, that's a bit like May refusing to answer when asked if she personally thought a reincarnated Oswald Mosley should be allowed to join the Tories.
Oswald Mosley, really? I admit I dont keep up all that well with UK politics but I have a hard time imaging he would be on the same level as the guy that started a fascist party and literally rubbed shoulders with Mussolini and Hitler
The Brexit Secretary said quitting the Brussels club will amount to a 'paradigm change' comparable with the biggest financial slump since the Depression of the 1930s.
Mr Davis told the committee: 'You don't need to do a formal impact assessment to understand that if there is a regulatory hurdle between your producers and a market, there will be an impact.
I feel slightly dirty just linking to the Daily Mail, but since this is a pro-brexit paper, it's really looking damning. This could be enough to tip the voter share.
Ketara wrote: Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!
I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.
Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?
Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?
That's what I was thinking; disagreeing with Israels stance on something isn't anti-semetic on it's own (unless the disagreement is because they are Jews); no more than disagreeing with a woman on something is sexist, or someone of a different colour is racist. It's just Israel seems to jump on the anti-semitism card whenever people disagree with them. I can almost understand the persecution complex, but it doesn't make it any more valid.
The problem is that it can look like anti-semitism because Israel is the Jewish nation as per Balfour Declaration.
It doesn't help that a lot of the international animosity towards Israel comes from Arab nations and can be tinged with what looks like genuine anti-semitism.
If someone is critical of Israel as a government, that's nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
Yet, there's elements out there quick to label it anti-Semitic to shutdown as much criticism as possible.
And that only plays into the hands of actual anti-semites, who are already convinced there's some kind of bizarre Jewish conspiracy to control the world.
I'm always amazed that the Tories are attacking Labour on anti-Semitism when you consider the controversial links the Tories had with a certain Apartheid regime in a well known African country in the 1980s...
And when they attack Corbyn over the IRA, I think, is this the same Tories + DUP + certain Loyalist groups in 1980s Northern Ireland, we're talking about here, or a completely different Tory party?
All I'm saying is people glass houses stones and all that.
If someone is critical of Israel as a government, that's nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.
Yet, there's elements out there quick to label it anti-Semitic to shutdown as much criticism as possible.
And that only plays into the hands of actual anti-semites, who are already convinced there's some kind of bizarre Jewish conspiracy to control the world.
I criticise Israeli foreign policy all the time, and the Palestinians as well for that matter, and it's never bothered me a bit to be labelled anti-Semitic, because I know my criticisms are genuine foreign policy criticism.
In all, my foreign policy doctrine can be summed up in one sentence: Keep the hell away from the Middle East.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am afraid that that danger is inherent in the nature of the situation, in that Israel was created specifically as the Jewish homeland.
But it shouldn't be. Israel the government is distinct from Judaism.
In the same way that disagreeing with the Saudis isn't disagreeing with Islam. (I'm taking Saudi Arabia as the home of Islam, because that's where Mecca is).
Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
I'll say what I always say to people. There's always conflict in the ME, the Israel/Palestinian preace process is never ending, and better men and women than us have tried and failed to resolve it.
Forests of trees have been felled to provide paper for the articles written about it.
The talking will continue and the trees will keep being felled. Life is too short to be bogged down with the Middle East peace process.
Let the Americans learn that lesson the hard way, and let them waste their time, blood, and money, on a fool's mission, if that is their choice.
I agree with your point, but lots of people have difficulty in maintaining that level of objectivity about things.
To put it differently, there certainly are people who criticise Israel due to anti-semitism, and there are people who criticise Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations due to anti-Islamism.
How to distinguish between these people and people who are critical due to non-anti- political views?
Kilkrazy wrote: I am afraid that that danger is inherent in the nature of the situation, in that Israel was created specifically as the Jewish homeland.
Not really, is it anti-arabaism when you criticise the government of the Syrian Arab republic? Of course not, the government and the people are two separate things, and critiquing one doesn't mean you have some bias against the other.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.
I suppose unlike other areas of fractious tribes, there's nothing that's really unified them into making actual states that hasn't been forced upon them by (for the most part) foreign powers which then got deposed, or if there was a local power house (persians, sassanids, ottomans etc) they've always sort of been repressive and then beaten by a foreign power house.
I guess I'm trying to say it hasn't been the most stable region due to internal and external meddling.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.
1000 years might be overdoing it, there was a long "down-time" period between the crusades(which were mostly failures) and when European colonies started appearing in the middle-east.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.
Not for a minute am I saying that I agree with the Crusades, but fanatical Christians trying to take back the birth-place of the founder of their religion makes sense.
Similarly, when the British Empire recognises a Jewish homeland, they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it because they want a friendly nation next to the vital Suez Canal which links Britain to its African and Asian colonies. Again, perfect, strategic rational.
But when the USA, this superpower, has its foreign policy dictated to it by a small nation on the other side of the world, it makes ZERO sense from any geopolitical or strategic viewpoint.
But we're straying OT. I wish we still had the US politics thread for this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain was in the Middle East for 200 years and it was nothing but trouble. Anything that moved in the Middle East, and chances are that Britain fought it.
We've been gakking about in the middle east for at least 1000 years at this point, including 3 failed Crusades.
I suppose unlike other areas of fractious tribes, there's nothing that's really unified them into making actual states that hasn't been forced upon them by (for the most part) foreign powers which then got deposed, or if there was a local power house (persians, sassanids, ottomans etc) they've always sort of been repressive and then beaten by a foreign power house.
I guess I'm trying to say it hasn't been the most stable region due to internal and external meddling.
Good point. The Ottomans were obviously Islamic, but even then, there was still trouble and tensions.
Ketara wrote: Meanwhile, temporarily moving on from the constant attention sink that is Brexit, apparently Jeremy Corbyn's allies are totally cool with the anti-semitic, sexist, 'I salute your courage Saddam' George Galloway rejoining the welcoming folds of the Labour Party. From the people, for the people!
I'm still trying to discover why him, Livingston and Corbyn are excused over these things.
Is it because opposing Israeli foreign policy and looking for a Two State solution is in fact, not Anti-Semitism?
And promoting 'White Empowerment Day' isn't in fact, racism.
Come on guv. Don't be that guy. You're technically correct, but you're missing a whole lot of other stuff. Actually stop, look at the historical context, look at where the money promoting 'Anti-Israeli' groups comes from, question why Israel somehow gets boycotts/mass protests/outrage, etc etc, whilst China and every other two bit autocracy with cash gets a free pass, look at the media apparatus in existence designed to falsify/exaggerate Israeli evils, and so on.
It is possible to not be a fan of Israeli foreign policy and have it be unrelated to anti-semitism, I'm one of them. Heck, I'd argue that most of the bored University kids who champion it fall under that category. But those selfsame people usually fail to realise that the other side is just as bad over there, and that they're being very deliberately puppeteered in their 'Free Palestine, down with Israel' schpiel by more malign interests.
When it comes to the Labour party and the hard left generally, their anti-semitism is well documented. Christ, Corbyn had to whitewash the whole thing very recently by offering a job to the person who was investigating it, lest we forget.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Meanwhile Britain arms the Saudis, and Tories describe people like Pinochet as 'a very good friend' etc.
Evidence please that Jeremy Corbyn is or ever has been an anti-Semite, or please stop raising it.
Firstly, I didn't say that he was an anti-semite. At any point. Please don't misrepresent me. Secondly, do you ever plan to actually engage with me on the substantive points I'm mentioning, or are you just going to do another 'poop and swoop'? Whataboutism doesn't qualify as a valid form of argument or justification, just so you're aware.
And promoting 'White Empowerment Day' isn't in fact, racism.
Come on guv. Don't be that guy. You're technically correct, but you're missing a whole lot of other stuff. Actually stop, look at the historical context, look at where the money promoting 'Anti-Israeli' groups comes from, question why Israel somehow gets boycotts/mass protests/outrage, etc etc, whilst China and every other two bit autocracy with cash gets a free pass, look at the media apparatus in existence designed to falsify/exaggerate Israeli evils, and so on.
Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid
It is possible to not be a fan of Israeli foreign policy and have it be unrelated to anti-semitism, I'm one of them. Heck, I'd argue that most of the bored University kids who champion it fall under that category.
Agreed, so why are you trying to smear people as anti-Semits when they oppose the actions of the state of Israel?
You heavily implied it, and almost certainly deliberate. You've equated his choice not to attend a 'Friends of Israel' dinner with....what? Why raise it if you're not making a pathetic, baseless insinuation?
You claim 'the left' has well documented anti-Semitism, yet fail to provide any supporting evidence.
Could it be Corbyn is doing what he's always done, and speaking up for those typically ignored? Israel is well represented on the world's stage. Hamas, who do not forget are a legitimate political party. Iran? Yeah, not so much.
You're making a lot of accusations, but providing absolutely zero proof.
Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid
MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?
Note that the focus of the above isn't 'Other people get away with it, so Israel should too!' This isn't some form of pseudo-justification like MDG's comment above. I'm not sitting here arguing that Israel is all hunky dory, that would be dumb and wrong.
No, the question actually being explored (which is a very different and far more interesting one) is 'What is it about Israel that inspires such animosity and clearly different treatment?' To which the answer is a very long, convoluted one, of which anti-semitism is a strong thread, but not the only one. Regional politics, historical context, and more feed into it.
Agreed, so why are you trying to smear people as anti-Semits when they oppose the actions of the state of Israel?
If you wanna talk "poop and swoop", you have yet answered how criticising Israel puts one on the same level as Oswald Mosley?
You've very clearly not actually read what I said, which might account for your somewhat vituperative response. Go back and read, please. I said that George Galloway was on the same level as Oswald Mosley. Not people who criticise Israel.
Any criticism of Israel is labelled anti-Semitism all too quickly.
Because anti-Semitism is wrong, and the horrors of the 'final solution'.
It's an effective way of shutting down any and all criticism - and only plays into the hands of actual, genuine anti-semites, who use it as an example of an alleged Jewish secret world government nonsense fantasy.
For some reason, anti-Semitism is nowadays seen as far worse than other racism - otherwise, we wouldn't have allowed islamophobia to reach the stage it has. All racism should be treated as equally horrific and idiotic. But it's not.
Meanwhile, by pointing the finger, Israel can seemingly get away with horrific acts - bulldozing villages and towns, uprooting people, illegally occupying land and ignoring UN Resolutions. With none of the shunning and bile the like of North Korea, Iran etc get - instead they get massive support, especially from the US.
That in turn keeps the Middle East unstable, as it's all too easy to point to Israel and say This Is Why The West Is Bad.
Yeah China certainly got a free pass for the whole Tibet thing, just like how SA got a free pass for apartheid
MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?
I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from there is and has been plenty of media coverage condemning both of the other two for various reasons. The reason governments don't condemn them as harshly (especially Saudi) is that they have things we actually want (oil and a stable country/ally in the ME for Saudi, cheap labour and a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude for China). And for the record, I don't like the governments of all three.
Another reason is somewhat less cynical (but slightly racist). Most people know the likes of Saudi and China are backwards, authoritarian states, and hence don't expect much in the way of good humanitarian attitudes. Whereas Israel is supposed to be a modern democracy, and hence open to reason and listening to criticism (news flash: the latter certainly isn't true), so the difference between what's expected and what actually happens is greater.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You heavily implied it, and almost certainly deliberate. You've equated his choice not to attend a 'Friends of Israel' dinner with....what? Why raise it if you're not making a pathetic, baseless insinuation?
No. Stop. Listen, please. There's more than one eel in that barrel, and if you jump to conclusions and project onto my posts, this will go nowhere.
I'm not calling him an anti-semite. What I'm doing, is pointing out (and I have evidenced it) that his normal rhetoric about sitting down with everyone to promote peace is clearly not evenly applied. It can't be that he has moral issues sitting down with people prepared to kill or commit atrocities, because he sits down with some very dubious characters over the years. It can't be that he has a problem with authoritarian governments, because he very literally took money to appear on Iranian television.
So what is it? It could be anti-semitism, certainly. That's one option. But only one. Another is that he's fallen prey to the same efforts as those University kids I mentioned earlier. It could be that he had a bad experience with an Israeli official which personally put him off them for life. It could be that his dad or some other social grouping of his imparted some subconscious biases to him. Really, there's a multiplicity of options stretching from the credible to the inane.
But really? That's beside the point. The evidenced fact here is simple; that he is willing to treat Israel differently to the way he treats everyone else. And that, in a nutshell, is a problem I have with many in the Labour Party. You say here:
You claim 'the left' has well documented anti-Semitism, yet fail to provide any supporting evidence.
but if you bothered to run a basic google search, you'll find yourself overloaded with evidence.
Here's three very respected historians signing a letter to the Times about the widespread anti-semitism hidden in the Labour Party as anti-Israeli criticism.
If you want more, it's really not hard. I could link to countless gaffes by the likes of Ken Livingstone, Nasreen Khan, and so on. I'll leave to dig for it yourself though, because in all seriousness, the hard left has always had problems with Jews, and denying that right now is like denying they were left wing. I mean, jeez, You should read some of the stuff Bakunin used to write.
You're making a lot of accusations, but providing absolutely zero proof.
Because my original point was about Galloway. Why would I provide proof about anti-semitism in the Labour Party when I was discussing George Galloway? I'm providing it now the conversation has moved in that direction, but there was certainly no call for it before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: [quote=Ketara 724548 9733381 494cf4449eec231a8665af128f4d8a2e.png
I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from there is and has been plenty of media coverage condemning both of the other two for various reasons. The reason governments don't condemn them as harshly (especially Saudi) is that they have things we actually want (oil and a stable country/ally in the ME for Saudi, cheap labour and a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude for China). And for the record, I don't like the governments of all three.
Thing is, I'm not even referring particularly to the media coverage, that's just one leg. Where are the endless UN motions against dictatorial states? I think Israel has racked up more than every autocracy combined. Where are the multiple student protests and organised SU activities against the Iranian government? Where are the academic boycotts against Burma? The people vowing not to buy goods from Ivory Coast?
Another reason is somewhat less cynical (but slightly racist). Most people know the likes of Saudi and China are backwards, authoritarian states, and hence don't expect much in the way of good humanitarian attitudes. Whereas Israel is supposed to be a modern democracy, and hence open to reason and listening to criticism (news flash: the latter certainly isn't true), so the difference between what's expected and what actually happens is greater.
I think this is certainly a part of it, but only a small part of it. The uniqueness in the way that Israel is treated as a pariah state is an absolutely fascinating one with a great many causes, and the causes in every case differ. It's more of a wider cultural phenomenon than a simple party political case. The Labour Party appears to have been more susceptible to it than the Tories, but I think the Lib Dems are just as bad with it in many regards.
The difference I suppose, is that when I sit down and examine the different strands and causes behind it, it would appear to be the case that the Lib Dems fall more into the genuine human rights angle. Whereas the Labour Party has far more easily traced malicious ideological and anti-semitic elements at play.
This is true. What is equally true however, is that modern anti-semitism is usually cloaked as being 'anti-Israeli'. So how do you resolve these two dichotomies? Any statement can either be defended on the lines of 'I'm just criticising Israel', or attacked as 'That's anti-semitism'.
The answer is to carefully dissect the motivations and logic behind statements made and actions taken. Otherwise, legitimate discussion will be shut down under accusations of anti-semitism, and anti-semitism (to whatever degree) will be shielded.
MDG actually answered this for me up above, bizarely enough (though i doubt he expected to). He pointed out how the Tories and British foreign policy generally have their own skeletons. So the question must be; what is it about Israel that inspires such a continual bombardment of negative press whereas alternative governments/examples doing just as bad if not worse get a free pass? What inspires the endless rallies, boycotts, invective, and so on against Israel, when the Qatari Royal Family get feted by political leaders of every stripe, and barely a student voice is raised? In all seriousness, China does far worse than Israel, Tibet being one example. Where's the Chinese academic boycott?
As I pointed in my earlier post, both China and SA got LOADS of negative press, student boycotts and political critic for Tibet/Apartheid, so I dont see this special treatment you imagine Israel get.
Note that the focus of the above isn't 'Other people get away with it, so Israel should too!' This isn't some form of pseudo-justification like MDG's comment above. I'm not sitting here arguing that Israel is all hunky dory, that would be dumb and wrong.
Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.
As I pointed in my earlier post, both China and SA got LOADS of negative press, student boycotts and political critic for Tibet/Apartheid, so I dont see this special treatment you imagine Israel get.
Did they? I'm sorry if I'm missed them. I'm willing to admit I am wrong though. Just for formality's sake, could you please link me to:-
If you can produce the evidence to show that both are treated identically, I'll be more than happy to admit I am wrong. Please note that they'll need to all be focused on China solely; because pick and mixing your approach (well, there was a protests here against one nation on one issue, a boycott against another on something else) doesn't really prove anything.
Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.
I'm not arguing that nobody else gets flak for being despostic. Let me try and rephrase for you. What I'm saying is that no dictatorship, autocracy, or human rights violator on the planet currently seems to come in for the same scale of persistent continual protesting, sanctioning, and criticism as Israel, nor to the same degree. This is very explicitly not the same as what you are ascribing me as saying (which is that nobody else gets criticised or protested against).
I don't think the left or right are particularly better in one regard or another. This should really come down to are there elements in each party that are religiously intolerant. And the answer to that is almost certainly yes (though it is all anecdotal really).
Both the Palestine and Israeli state undertake types of 'ethnic cleansing', the former with bullets and bombs and the latter with forced relocations and walls. That then causes each society to feed off the fear and hatred that causes (if anything nwar and intolerance only drives people into deeper held intolerant views), which results in governments that are more intolerant and the cycle continues. It really needs one side to decide they want to break that deadlock. For the western world the Israel government is far more accessible but is generally inclined not to make first steps so hence frustration against the government can come out as frustration against the people that they represent because they are both intertwined (but when the reality is that it is only the government that really has any control over what actions to prosecute).
I think unfortunately though that in the end the reality is that the whole mess won't be sorted until someone drops a few nukes on the whole area so that *no one* can live there. And personally I think this region is likely to be where there is the highest chance of nuclear terrorist attack.
I agree with the rest of your post, pretty much, but whilst Hamas are technically a legitimate political party, they are absolute bastards and not some oppressed group innocently trying to be heard. I'm somewhat biased I concede, I've had a Hamas rocket land 50m from my bed and I have friends who can't go home because Hamas will probably execute them, but these are people who coerced and frightened themselves into government, routinely execute their citizens for perceived collaboration, have a constitution that calls for the extermination of Jews (not Israel, Jews), and think terror, especially kidnapping and murdering kids, is absolutely hunky dory - 'every Jew is a legitimate target'.
Folk should be immensely wary of supporting Hamas simply because they sympathise with Palestinians.
Yet, leave them out of talks, and you're just creating a problem.
Engaging with them does not mean you condone anything about them - simply recognising that, evil or not, they're still a legitimate political party.
For a microcosm, look to the Irish Troubles. Until everyone talked, nothing could happen. Yes, it's still tense and there's people provoking left right and centre - but leave out one group, and you can't claim to be completely partisan.
Engaging with them does not mean you condone anything about them - simply recognising that, evil or not, they're still a legitimate political party.
For a microcosm, look to the Irish Troubles. Until everyone talked, nothing could happen. Yes, it's still tense and there's people provoking left right and centre - but leave out one group, and you can't claim to be completely partisan.
There will be no progress until Hamas are replaced. The different with the Troubles is that there were interlocuters. British government did not have to directly and openly negotiate with terrorists from the outset because they could deal with them via political wings. Hamas are both the political entity and the terrorist one. There's no one to work with. Theoretically, I think the PLO could function like that if people considered a solution where the West Bank could be granted statehood independently of Gaza, and then act as a conduit for negotiations with Gaza, but neither of the Palestinian territories will countenance that. Unfortunately, Israeli pressure on Gaza will continue to rise as long as Hamas are in power, and the more that pressure increases the stronger Hamas' position becomes.
I think (and this is speculation below) )that when it comes to anti-semitism in British politics, the left wing are far more susceptible to it these days (i.e. the last thirty/forty odd years)
The right wing used to be terribly anti-semitic, but it was tied in quite inextricably to the disdain the aristocratic classes had for 'the Jew'. I quite regularly read stories about the pre-war upper classes laughing at a Jewish banker falling off a horse, scorning Kind Edward's 'Jewish bankers', or even referring to ones they liked in anti-semitic terms ('He's a Jew but one of the good ones. If you want to negotiate with him though, make sure to get your own lawyer so he doesn't out-Jew you!')
After Hitlerite Germany, the deliberate boosting of Israel as a proxy to oppose the Soviet Union, the purging of Jewish influence from the communist movements, and the seizure of the Conservative party by the middle classes though, the Tories have more or less let go of their institutionalised anti-semitism. They're also more prone to play politics according to realpolitik, and the Israelis have significant military power and the only developed economy in the Middle-East. Human rights concerns are also less of a concern for them. Plus the American Jewish lobby is monied and powerful, and it makes no sense to hack them off.
So whilst you might find some dregs of the old aristocratic anti-semitic disdain in the corners, it's not particularly evident.
The hard left wing in Britain on the other hand, has never lost their historical anti-semitic edge, which has been substantially buoyed in turn by other regional (traditionally anti-semitic) Middle-Eastern powers being very free with cash for anti-Israeli promotional purposes. This has allowed the creation of something of a media juggernaut for attacking the Israeli state; its persistent, unrelenting, and documents everything bad the Israelis do (and invents stuff when they don't). This constant limelight of the Israeli/Palestinian affair (as opposed to most negative stories about human rights, which sink out the news after a week) in turn makes it highly visible to young politically aware types looking for a cause to champion. And those aforementioned regional powers are all too happy to splash the cash a bit to fund rallies and promotional materials.
The result, I think, is that when those younger types grow up a bit and go on to join the left wing parties, they take that mentality with them. Most of them aren't actively anti-semitic, and would be vastly offended if you called them such. But they do treat Israel that little bit differently to all the other human rights offenders, and it sinks into their politics and vocabulary. It's why so often you get left wing politicians getting jumped on for a very badly phrased statement. When you put that next to the more persistent hard left anti-semitic tendencies (who have ideological reasons revolving around Jewish bankers and various such things)?
The result is what you see. There's little in the way of deliberate 'Kill the Jews' stuff, but there is a slightly anti-semitic cultural by-product that has filtered into the left-wing political atmosphere that most aren't even aware of. And it is quite pervasive in that regard. The Lib Dems are just as susceptible to it as Labour; the difference is that the hard left edge isn't present to spur it on. When New Labour was in ascendancy under Blair and the mid to hard left were out in the cold, the more anti-semitic aspects were frozen out along with them. With the rise of Corbyn however, and the movement back to the left wing?
Well, the answer is what you see. People like Galloway (who really are anti-semites) suddenly find that they have allies in the heart of the party once again. And that's a concerning development; one which hasn't been helped by Corbyn doing his level best to suppress anything relating to it and whitewashing the only investigation which took place. I get that he has politics of his own to play, and doesn't want to hand a tool to his political enemies, but it means that I'm more inclined to go Lib Dem than Labour.
And Israel at one point was a communist experiment, drawing volunteers from Socialist and Communist parties across Europe to learn the way of the Kibbutz.
Then WW2 happened, and the aftermath made very strange bedfellows.
I'm flying to Israel on Sunday, and one of my collaborators there is an old communist. It takes some extensive mental gymnastics to reconcile generally left-wing ideas with support for the kind of stuff Israel does (is forced to do according to some).
One of the most interesting people in my small world to have tea with
Problem is that it comes off like that when you ignore all the evidence that not only Israel get flak for being despotic.
I'm not arguing that nobody else gets flak for being despostic. Let me try and rephrase for you. What I'm saying is that no dictatorship, autocracy, or human rights violator on the planet currently seems to come in for the same scale of persistent continual protesting, sanctioning, and criticism as Israel, nor to the same degree. This is very explicitly not the same as what you are ascribing me as saying (which is that nobody else gets criticised or protested against).
China or Saudi Arabia aren't trying to use their status as a democracy to bolster the legitimacy. of their actions, Israel is When a nation claims they're a democracy we hold them to a higher standard than when they don't even bother. There's also, I'd argue, some guilt on the West's part in having created the current mess in the first place. In a sense it's a reverse form of racism where we hold Israel responsible because the nation was, to a great degree, born out of the West. A sort of "we wouldn't expect the Chinese barbarians or the crazies in Africa to behave, but you're supposed to be like us!" justification. I guess this'd fall under what you called "historical context" above though.
(This above post contains: Sarcasm, nuts and flu capsules.)
But we can veto it... wait.
Since when does the voice of one member of an opposition party suddenly become the voice of the whole of Germany?
Yes there are different ideologies, but claiming and comparing the Germany of today with Hitler's Germany of 1930/40's is hardly rational. Just look at the Tory party conference. Theresa May says all sorts of things. None of it really actually happens....
(This above post contains: Sarcasm, nuts and flu capsules.)
But we can veto it... wait.
Since when does the voice of one member of an opposition party suddenly become the voice of the whole of Germany?
Yes there are different ideologies, but claiming and comparing the Germany of today with Hitler's Germany of 1930/40's is hardly rational. Just look at the Tory party conference. Theresa May says all sorts of things. None of it really actually happens....
Did you not read the part where I said my post was sarcastic?
But hey, Hitler was the leader of an opposition party at one point.
Sarcasm aside, there are plenty of people in the higher up places of the EU that have this view he's just come out and said it. As Juncker once said, the EU does something, if no one kicks up a fuss it carries on until there is no turning back.
welshhoppo wrote: Sarcasm aside, there are plenty of people in the higher up places of the EU that have this view he's just come out and said it. As Juncker once said, the EU does something, if no one kicks up a fuss it carries on until there is no turning back.
And if someone does say no they just do it anyway. He said himself, "“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’".
It's kind of like the attempt at an EU army. They start setting it up whilst continuing to deny that they're doing it, until one day it's all in place and they just do it. And then after it's done if anyone objects they just shrug their shoulders and say 'it's too late now'.
Sarcasm aside, there are plenty of people in the higher up places of the EU that have this view he's just come out and said it. As Juncker once said, the EU does something, if no one kicks up a fuss it carries on until there is no turning back.
I think that is how all politics works really not just for the EU.
China or Saudi Arabia aren't trying to use their status as a democracy to bolster the legitimacy. of their actions, Israel is
Truthfully? I think the people who make up Israel stopped giving a flying feth about what the rest of the world thought back in 1940.
And with good reason. Hitler had his way with them, the Russians and Poles kept killing them even when they tried to go home, the Brits and French refused to take them, but put into new camps in Cyprus when they tried to get to Palestine. Then they were invaded multiple times over, and every time they won, their foreign opposition demanded that they just forgive and forget, and return their state to existing along lines arbitrarily drawn on a map prior to their country existing.
Their human rights abuses and blatant racism towards Palestinians are well documented, and I in no way endorse such actions. I do however, have complete sympathy for their annexation of certain areas like the Golan Heights. Why? Because if you go to war with a nation with the intent of committing genocide not once, but four times, and that nation then kicks your arse? You've little grounds for complaint when they slice off a small area of your adjoining territory to use as a buffer zone in case you do it again. Compared to what was agreed at the Treaty of Versailles, or indeed, most peace treaties signed in the last hundred years, losing control of the Golan Heights is small potatoes.
When the protestors keep bringing up issues like that as evidence of Israel's perfidy amongst the genuine issues though, it dilutes the message and just makes them go, 'Well you clearly are either an idiot or have it in for us too. Either way, we shall ignore you'.
That may be, but the wider issue is that it makes zero sense for a super power like the USA to invest so much time and money into propping up Israel...whilst gaining nothing in return, but trouble...
The more I read about the Founding Fathers, the more I respect their wisdom. Were they perfect? Of course not, especially the slave owners amongst them who saw no contradiction in advocating life liberty pursuit of happiness etc etc whilst keeping slaves.
None the less, their advice was ignored, to the detriment of the USA IMO.
They warned about the dangers of executive over reach. They warned about the dangers of political parties, and above all, they warned about the danger of foreign entanglements...
As for British politics, we just launched an aircraft carrier without any aircraft
and according to various ex-Chiefs of the military, Tory cuts have ran the army and the navy into the ground.
The next time there is a Middle East war, and there's always a next time, Britain's contribution will probably be of the token kind, and that in itself is a blessing.
To paraphrase Bismarck, the Middle East is not worth the bones of one British Tommy.
The USA in the Middle East is just part of them being the new British Empire. So they created a state that's so dependant on the US that it helps them keep an eye on that part of the world.
China or Saudi Arabia aren't trying to use their status as a democracy to bolster the legitimacy. of their actions, Israel is
Truthfully? I think the people who make up Israel stopped giving a flying feth about what the rest of the world thought back in 1940.
And with good reason. Hitler had his way with them, the Russians and Poles kept killing them even when they tried to go home, the Brits and French refused to take them, but put into new camps in Cyprus when they tried to get to Palestine. Then they were invaded multiple times over, and every time they won, their foreign opposition demanded that they just forgive and forget, and return their state to existing along lines arbitrarily drawn on a map prior to their country existing.
Their human rights abuses and blatant racism towards Palestinians are well documented, and I in no way endorse such actions. I do however, have complete sympathy for their annexation of certain areas like the Golan Heights. Why? Because if you go to war with a nation with the intent of committing genocide not once, but four times, and that nation then kicks your arse? You've little grounds for complaint when they slice off a small area of your adjoining territory to use as a buffer zone in case you do it again. Compared to what was agreed at the Treaty of Versailles, or indeed, most peace treaties signed in the last hundred years, losing control of the Golan Heights is small potatoes.
When the protestors keep bringing up issues like that as evidence of Israel's perfidy amongst the genuine issues though, it dilutes the message and just makes them go, 'Well you clearly are either an idiot or have it in for us too. Either way, we shall ignore you'.
I can't really say anything other than that I agree fully with what you just said. I have little sympathy for Israel's neighbours getting their asses kicked because they were dumb enough to attack someone much more powerful than them. It's the people that through no fault of their own get treated like dirt by Israel that I'm a bit miffed about.
I can't really say anything other than that I agree fully with what you just said. I have little sympathy for Israel's neighbours getting their asses kicked because they were dumb enough to attack someone much more powerful than them.
Well, the last few proper conventional wars were in no way a case of the various Middle Eastern states attacking a nation more powerful than them. Quite the reverse, Israel was the underdog being attacked on all fronts. In many cases, their own commanders thought they were done, the allied Arab nations were making all sorts of speeches about soaking the sand with Yid blood and driving the Jews back into the sea. In the face of that, I think Israel acted astonishingly humanely at that point in time as it was. They returned vast amounts of territory to Egypt without so much as a whimper in exchange for peace, and their war record against enemy civilians at the time was, as far as I'm aware(I could be wrong), exemplary.
When faced with that sort of rhetoric, to swipe a small section of territory after victory because its elevated, and the enemy keep sticking artillery on it is hardly out of order.
It's the people that through no fault of their own get treated like dirt by Israel that I'm a bit miffed about.
Aye. It's reprehensible, yet at the same time, sadly comprehensible. And the likes of Hamas do more damage to their own people than the Israelis do. It's just a muddy cycle of violence, blow and counterblow, racism engendered and racism earnt on both sides. It's a sad state of affairs, there's too much damage both ways to make a grand judgement on one side being right and the other wrong.
An Israeli soldier hits a palestinian boy because one of his friends was blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber with a similar appearance, who in turn did what he did because his wife was hit by an Israeli air strike due to Hamas sheperded her into a building with a mortar to use as a human shield. Is the Israeli soldier wrong? Sure. His act of violence was wrong. As was the suicide bomber. As was Hamas, and so on. But in all of their heads, they're fulfilling their individual ideas of justice and retribution. There is no 'right' side at the end of the day.
That's what most of these 'Free Palestine' groups ignore. And to bring it back to politics, it's something that bugs me when Corbyn acts all Holier than Thou and snubs Israeli diplomats and visitors yet has no problem calling for Hamas to be removed from the list of terrorists. In my eyes, that makes him one of four things, a hypocrite, a liar, an idiot, or an anti-semite (or a mixture of any and all four).
Aye. It's reprehensible, yet at the same time, sadly comprehensible. And the likes of Hamas do more damage to their own people than the Israelis do. It's just a muddy cycle of violence, blow and counterblow, racism engendered and racism earnt on both sides. It's a sad state of affairs, there's too much damage both ways to make a grand judgement on one side being right and the other wrong.
Keeping the Palestinians as a whole (not Hamas, not the activists, everyone) as second class citizens is definitely wrong, no matter how much bad blood is there.
Either give them full statehood and let them sort their mess on their own or give them Israeli citizenship, voice and vote.
There was a time when the Palestinians were basically integrated in Israeli life, rode the Egged buses, etc. The different Arab wars of aggression are one thing, what Israel did with the spoils afterwards lies entirely at their feet.
Keeping the Palestinians as a whole (not Hamas, not the activists, everyone) as second class citizens is definitely wrong, no matter how much bad blood is there.
Either give them full statehood and let them sort their mess on their own or give them Israeli citizenship, voice and vote.
There was a time when the Palestinians were basically integrated in Israeli life, rode the Egged buses, etc. The different Arab wars of aggression are one thing, what Israel did with the spoils afterwards lies entirely at their feet.
I think all those neighbours who spent vast amounts of time and money funding resistance/terrorist groups to kill Israelis, spark counterblows, keep the cycle of hatred going, and generate bad press might have a leeeeetle bit to do with it. It's not quite the case that the Israeli PM woke up one day , had a great(?) idea, and wrote 'ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION' on his to do list. It's been a gradually escalating case of tit for tat, action and counterreaction (and sometimes overreaction) for the last thirty years.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You heavily implied it, and almost certainly deliberate. You've equated his choice not to attend a 6'Friends of Israel' dinner with....what? Why raise it if you're not making a pathetic, baseless insinuation?
No. Stop. Listen, please. There's more than one eel in that barrel, and if you jump to conclusions and project onto my posts, this will go nowhere.
I'm not calling him an anti-semite. What I'm doing, is pointing out (and I have evidenced it) that his normal rhetoric about sitting down with everyone to promote peace is clearly not evenly applied. It can't be that he has moral issues sitting down with people prepared to kill or commit atrocities, because he sits down with some very dubious characters over the years. It can't be that he has a problem with authoritarian governments, because he very literally took money to appear on Iranian television.
So what is it? It could be anti-semitism, certainly. That's one option. But only one. Another is that he's fallen prey to the same efforts as those University kids I mentioned earlier. It could be that he had a bad experience with an Israeli official which personally put him off them for life. It could be that his dad or some other social grouping of his imparted some subconscious biases to him. Really, there's a multiplicity of options stretching from the credible to the inane.
But really? That's beside the point. The evidenced fact here is simple; that he is willing to treat Israel differently to the way he treats everyone else. And that, in a nutshell, is a problem I have with many in the Labour Party. You say here:
You claim 'the left' has well documented anti-Semitism, yet fail to provide any supporting evidence.
but if you bothered to run a basic google search, you'll find yourself overloaded with evidence.
Here's three very respected historians signing a letter to the Times about the widespread anti-semitism hidden in the Labour Party as anti-Israeli criticism.
If you want more, it's really not hard. I could link to countless gaffes by the likes of Ken Livingstone, Nasreen Khan, and so on. I'll leave to dig for it yourself though, because in all seriousness, the hard left has always had problems with Jews, and denying that right now is like denying they were left wing. I mean, jeez, You should read some of the stuff Bakunin used to write.
You're making a lot of accusations, but providing absolutely zero proof.
Because my original point was about Galloway. Why would I provide proof about anti-semitism in the Labour Party when I was discussing George Galloway? I'm providing it now the conversation has moved in that direction, but there was certainly no call for it before.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: [quote=Ketara 724548 9733381 494cf4449eec231a8665af128f4d8a2e.png
I don't know about the UK, but where I'm from there is and has been plenty of media coverage condemning both of the other two for various reasons. The reason governments don't condemn them as harshly (especially Saudi) is that they have things we actually want (oil and a stable country/ally in the ME for Saudi, cheap labour and a "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude for China). And for the record, I don't like the governments of all three.
Thing is, I'm not even referring particularly to the media coverage, that's just one leg. Where are the endless UN motions against dictatorial states? I think Israel has racked up more than every autocracy combined. Where are the multiple student protests and organised SU activities against the Iranian government? Where are the academic boycotts against Burma? The people vowing not to buy goods from Ivory Coast?
Another reason is somewhat less cynical (but slightly racist). Most people know the likes of Saudi and China are backwards, authoritarian states, and hence don't expect much in the way of good humanitarian attitudes. Whereas Israel is supposed to be a modern democracy, and hence open to reason and listening to criticism (news flash: the latter certainly isn't true), so the difference between what's expected and what actually happens is greater.
I think this is certainly a part of it, but only a small part of it. The uniqueness in the way that Israel is treated as a pariah state is an absolutely fascinating one with a great many causes, and the causes in every case differ. It's more of a wider cultural phenomenon than a simple party political case. The Labour Party appears to have been more susceptible to it than the Tories, but I think the Lib Dems are just as bad with it in many regards.
The difference I suppose, is that when I sit down and examine the different strands and causes behind it, it would appear to be the case that the Lib Dems fall more into the genuine human rights angle. Whereas the Labour Party has far more easily traced malicious ideological and anti-semitic elements at play.
This is true. What is equally true however, is that modern anti-semitism is usually cloaked as being 'anti-Israeli'. So how do you resolve these two dichotomies? Any statement can either be defended on the lines of 'I'm just criticising Israel', or attacked as 'That's anti-semitism'.
The answer is to carefully dissect the motivations and logic behind statements made and actions taken. Otherwise, legitimate discussion will be shut down under accusations of anti-semitism, and anti-semitism (to whatever degree) will be shielded.
That's all very well, but neither of those links link to actual antisemitism, just accusations of antisemitism, one of which is reported by the Telegraph of all fething papers.
Have you got any evidence of the Labour Party being anti-semitic, or are you just happy to support the narrative without actual evidence?
And by anti-semitic, I mean explicit racist attitudes towards Jews by the "Labour Party". I fully expect you to quote Naz Shah, and Ken Livingston, but those are comments made by individual members, who were then sanctioned by the party. What I would like you to prove is that the Labour Party is anti-semitic. Prove it. Point directly to the statement made on behalf of the party in the last 10 years that is straight anti-Jewish racism.
Pound to a pinch of gak you cannot, because it is bollocks swept up and inflamed by detractors that keeps getting brought up every time it's convenient by those hostile to the Labour Party.
Keeping the Palestinians as a whole (not Hamas, not the activists, everyone) as second class citizens is definitely wrong, no matter how much bad blood is there.
Either give them full statehood and let them sort their mess on their own or give them Israeli citizenship, voice and vote.
There was a time when the Palestinians were basically integrated in Israeli life, rode the Egged buses, etc. The different Arab wars of aggression are one thing, what Israel did with the spoils afterwards lies entirely at their feet.
I think all those neighbours who spent vast amounts of time and money funding resistance/terrorist groups to kill Israelis, spark counterblows, keep the cycle of hatred going, and generate bad press might have a leeeeetle bit to do with it. It's not quite the case that the Israeli PM woke up one day , had a great(?) idea, and wrote 'ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION' on his to do list. It's been a gradually escalating case of tit for tat, action and counterreaction (and sometimes overreaction) for the last thirty years.
This is a "Chicken before the egg?" type scenario.
People who are biased towards Palestine will claim that Palestinian aggression is a response to Israeli oppression.
People who are biased towards Israel will claim that Israeli oppression is a response to Palestinian aggression.
Thats the nature of vicious cycles. Everybody is right.
That's all very well, but neither of those links link to actual anti-semitic, just accusations of antisemitism, one of which is reported by the Telegraph of all fething papers.
Have you got any evidence of the Labour Party being anti-semitic, or are you just happy to support the narrative without actual evidence? .
Just to clarify whether or not I'll be wasting my time; are you actually discounting the testimony of a current Labour MP as to a light atmosphere of anti-semitism being pervasive within his party? Because that's not an accusation, that's an eyewitness testimony from someone intimately involved within it. Someone who I daresay, has much more experience than either of us.
Therefore if you won't accept evidence at that level; then the odds are that you won't accept anything short of Jeremy Corbyn and fifty other MP's publicly getting 'DEATH TO YIDS' publicly tattooed on their foreheads. And I won't bother wasting my time.
That's all very well, but neither of those links link to actual anti-semitic, just accusations of antisemitism, one of which is reported by the Telegraph of all fething papers.
Have you got any evidence of the Labour Party being anti-semitic, or are you just happy to support the narrative without actual evidence? .
Just to clarify whether or not I'll be wasting my time; are you actually discounting the testimony of a current Labour MP as to a light atmosphere of anti-semitism being pervasive within his party? Because that's not an accusation, that's an eyewitness testimony from someone intimately involved within it. Someone who I daresay, has much more experience than either of us.
Therefore if you won't accept evidence at that level; then the odds are that you won't accept anything short of Jeremy Corbyn and fifty other MP's publicly getting 'DEATH TO YIDS' publicly tattooed on their foreheads. And I won't bother wasting my time.
A current Labour MP who is, and has been a vocal opponent of Jeremy Corby and his leadership? What is the basis for his accusations? Where in either of those links is there anything other than an unequivocal condemnation by the Labour Party of antisemitism?
Are we to condemn the party because these people don't like what they hear said about the actions of the Israeli state, and that they choose to interpret as anti-semitic racism?
I think you are far to quick to state unequivocally that Labour is racist and anti-semitic because it suits your political narrative. There is actually no real evidence to support your argument apart from inflammatory articles in the right wing press.
Please have a read of this recent article, dated the 04th Dec 17 by the Jewish Voice for Labour about alleged antisemitism by Corbyn and the Labout Party...
They quote the Home affairs select committee in saying...
"There exist no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than in any other political party."
So please, if you have some actual evidence other than opinion and conjecture, please provide it, otherwise you're just demonstrating your own political bias.
Alright. Challenge accepted. So. Evidence of a lightly anti-semitic atmosphere pervading the Labour Party. I'll do more than a handful of blog posts or news articles, too (which are all ultimately opinion pieces).
1. Shami Chakrabarti was appointed to lead an enquiry into it recently. Generally considered to be a whitewash on account of the fact that she joined the Labour Party halfway through and then got a job immediately afterwards, her own report actually literally used the phrase 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere' with regards to anti-semitism in Labour, and "too much clear evidence... of ignorant attitudes". The report actually had to recommend that members refrain from using such appealing terms as 'Zio' in everyday discourse and communication. Most organisations don't usually have to actively recommend that sort of thing, you know?
2. The former Head of the Oxford Labour Club (which raises many prominent Labour politicians), upon ceasing to hold his post, said that many members 'have some kind of a problem with Jews'. No less than 32 former chairs and committee members signed an open letter opposing the OULC's decision to engage in a series of anti-apartheid rallies against Israel, describing them as ' little more than a gathering of propagandists seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.'
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/race-row-engulfs-oxford-university-labour-club/
While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an ‘anti-racist campaigner’ to express antisemitic views. Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker.s.
Not quite so complimentary of the Labour Party when you actually read the thing, eh? They very actively state that Corbyn's eladership has led to the creation of a 'safe space' for anti-semitism to flourish.
4. Evidence submitted to the above enquiry included an ESRC research council funded set of polls of the Labour membership. 1031 members was the sample size. Of that, 52% agreed that anti-semitism was a problem in Labour. This fell by about 7% after the party was opened up to Corbyn's newcomers on the £3 vote scheme, and most Labour members thought it was just as bad in other parties.Most of them also believed that it was a tool being used to batter Corbyn with, but the fact remains that about half the party members initially polled thought that there was a real issue with anti-semitism within Labour. https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/balewebbpolettisubmission4chakrabarti3rdjune2016-1.pdf
5. The endless exposes of Labour activists or appointees suddenly revealed as holding horribly anti-semitic views. I won't bother with names or links, because I could literally spend an hour compiling a long list. Google is there for you if you want it that badly. Start with Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah, as previously stated, and work your down to the low fry like Jackie Walker.
6. Here's the testimony of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and NEC:-
Mr Cryer, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, described a "seeping poison" and warned that future generations might not realise that when it came to Nazism, "we were right and they were wrong".
As chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, he sits on the disputes panel of the National Executive Committee, which rules on what members have "said, written or tweeted", he told the audience.
"I have seen some of the tweets from paid up Labour Party members and I am not kidding you, it makes your hair stand up," he said.
Some Labour members dismiss reports of anti-Semitism as a myth, he said.
"But you don't have to look very far before you see it's not a myth...and there's no place in the Labour Party for stuff like that."
Another MP, Wes Streeting, said a "rump" of anti-Semites in Labour should be "driven out" of the party.
"It isn't anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli government," he said.
"Unfortunately we see too many people examples of anti-Semitic language being used in order to do so."
8. I'm afraid that I will repeat the statement of John Mann, MP and chairperson of the All Party group on anti-semitism, that "Labour has a problem with anti-semitism that must be challenged". It's literally his job to keep an eye on these things, and just attempting to brush it off as party politics doesn't quite fly when seen next to all the other evidence above. If you want an interview where he discusses his personal motivations, try this on for size:-
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/john-mann-interview-1.432418 Not quite "rahrah down with Corbyn", is it now? Especially given that he's been doing it since 2005, long before Corbyn's ascendancy was anything more one man's dream in a comfy bed after a good fish supper in Islington.
I suppose I could go on, but frankly, I'm tired of it now. If you still want to believe I'm inventing things to 'fit my political narrative' after the above, you are more than welcome to do so. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've substantiated my point with both qualitative and quantitative data. You can dismiss it all as people out to get old Corby, but that, to my mind, is far more about making things fit a contemporary political narrative than any interest I have in the matter.
Ketara wrote: Alright. Challenge accepted. So. Evidence of a lightly anti-semitic atmosphere pervading the Labour Party. I'll do more than a handful of blog posts or news articles, too (which are all ultimately opinion pieces).
1. Shami Chakrabarti was appointed to lead an enquiry into it recently. Generally considered to be a whitewash on account of the fact that she joined the Labour Party halfway through and then got a job immediately afterwards, her own report actually literally used the phrase 'an occasionally toxic atmosphere' with regards to anti-semitism in Labour, and "too much clear evidence... of ignorant attitudes". The report actually had to recommend that members refrain from using such appealing terms as 'Zio' in everyday discourse and communication. Most organisations don't usually have to actively recommend that sort of thing, you know?
2. The former Head of the Oxford Labour Club, upon ceasing to hold his post, said that many members 'have some kind of a problem with Jews'. No less than 32 former chairs and committee members signed an open letter opposing the OULC's decision to engage in a series of anti-apartheid rallies against Israel, describing them as ' little more than a gathering of propagandists seeking to dismantle the only majority-Jewish member-state of the United Nations.'
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/race-row-engulfs-oxford-university-labour-club/
While the Labour Leader has a proud record of campaigning against many types of racism, based on the evidence we have received, we are not persuaded that he fully appreciates the distinct nature of post-Second World War antisemitism. Unlike other forms of racism, antisemitic abuse often paints the victim as a malign and controlling force rather than as an inferior object of derision, making it perfectly possible for an ‘anti-racist campaigner’ to express antisemitic views. Jewish Labour MPs have been subject to appalling levels of abuse, including antisemitic death threats from individuals purporting to be supporters of Mr Corbyn. Clearly, the Labour Leader is not directly responsible for abuse committed in his name, but we believe that his lack of consistent leadership on this issue, and his reluctance to separate antisemitism from other forms of racism, has created what some have referred to as a ‘safe space’ for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people. This situation has been further exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism, as illustrated by the saga involving the suspension, re-admittance and re-suspension of Jackie Walker.s.
Not quite so complimentary of the Labour Party when you actually read the thing, eh? They very actively state that Corbyn's eladership has led to the creation of a 'safe space' for anti-semitism to flourish.
4. Evidence submitted to the above enquiry included an ESRC research council funded set of polls of the Labour membership. 1031 members was the sample size. Of that, 52% agreed that anti-semitism was a problem in Labour. This fell by about 7% after the party was opened up to Corbyn's newcomers on the £3 vote scheme, and most Labour members thought it was just as bad in other parties.Most of them also believed that it was a tool being used to batter Corbyn with, but the fact remains that about half the party members initially polled thought that there was a real issue with anti-semitism within Labour. https://esrcpartymembersprojectorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/balewebbpolettisubmission4chakrabarti3rdjune2016-1.pdf
5. The endless exposes of Labour activists or appointees suddenly revealed as holding horribly anti-semitic views. I won't bother with names or links, because I could literally spend an hour compiling a long list. Google is there for you if you want it that badly. Start with Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah, as previously stated, and work your down to the low fry like Jackie Walker.
6. Here's the testimony of the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and NEC:-
Mr Cryer, Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, described a "seeping poison" and warned that future generations might not realise that when it came to Nazism, "we were right and they were wrong".
As chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, he sits on the disputes panel of the National Executive Committee, which rules on what members have "said, written or tweeted", he told the audience.
"I have seen some of the tweets from paid up Labour Party members and I am not kidding you, it makes your hair stand up," he said.
Some Labour members dismiss reports of anti-Semitism as a myth, he said.
"But you don't have to look very far before you see it's not a myth...and there's no place in the Labour Party for stuff like that."
Another MP, Wes Streeting, said a "rump" of anti-Semites in Labour should be "driven out" of the party.
"It isn't anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli government," he said.
"Unfortunately we see too many people examples of anti-Semitic language being used in order to do so."
8. I'm afraid that I will repeat the statement of John Mann, MP and chairperson of the All Party group on anti-semitism, that "Labour has a problem with anti-semitism that must be challenged". It's literally his job to keep an eye on these things, and just attempting to brush it off as party politics doesn't quite fly when seen next to all the other evidence above. If you want an interview where he discusses his personal motivations, try this on for size:-
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/john-mann-interview-1.432418 Not quite "rahrah down with Corbyn", is it now? Especially given that he's been doing it since 2005, long before Corbyn's ascendancy was anything more one man's dream in a comfy bed after a good fish supper in Islington.
I suppose I could go on, but frankly, I'm tired of it now. If you still want to believe I'm inventing things to 'fit my political narrative' after the above, you are more than welcome to do so. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've substantiated my point with both qualitative and quantitative data. You can dismiss it all as people out to get old Corby, but that, to my mind, is far more about making things fit a contemporary political narrative than any interest I have in the matter.
That's a lot of words, but thin on actual substance, and I look forward to checking your sources and tearing them to bits tomorrow, but not now as it's quarter to one in the morning and I need to get some sleep.
I'll be frank guv, if your first thought at looking at that lot is 'thin on substance, will tear to shreds!!', we're both wasting our time.
You'll produce a book review disagreeing with the books linked, point out the sections of the commission into anti-semitism that says that there's no statistical data proving Labour is anti-semitic (unsurprising, given you can't exactly stick out a poll saying 'Do you hate Jews'), discount the MP's as having nefarious political motives, say that members only have an empirical perception which can be wrong, etc, etc. We both know anyone can argue with anything if they want to, and the above post most certainly isn't a watertight 100% proven case. So if that's the angle you're coming at it from, you might as well save your breath and time on the response, I've just done it for you there.
But then again, I wasn't out to prove definitively that the Labour has mildly subconscious anti-semitic atmosphere. Christ, I can't even think as to how you'd ever be able to to gather the data for that. All I am interested in doing with the above is establishing that what I have stated thus far, right or wrong, is a logical and reasonable belief to hold with the evidence at hand. Which I think I have done. Certainly, I think I've proved that I've more strings to my bow than 'some inflammatory articles in the right wing press', as you so succinctly put it.
So in future, please can the accusations about me trying to get things to fit 'my political narrative or 'demonstrating my bias'?. Sure, I have my own perception on politics sure (don't we all?), but I'm not some closet Tory spy out to sabotage Corbyn, or thicko quoting Daily Mail headlines. I usually have a good reason for thinking something, and if I don't, I try to admit it.
Graphite wrote: "By September the entirely of Kent will be on fire. Cannibalism will have become the staple food of Yorkshire and nothing has entered or left the pulsing radioactive cloud at the border of Scotland for three weeks."
Keeping the Palestinians as a whole (not Hamas, not the activists, everyone) as second class citizens is definitely wrong, no matter how much bad blood is there.
Either give them full statehood and let them sort their mess on their own or give them Israeli citizenship, voice and vote.
There was a time when the Palestinians were basically integrated in Israeli life, rode the Egged buses, etc. The different Arab wars of aggression are one thing, what Israel did with the spoils afterwards lies entirely at their feet.
I think all those neighbours who spent vast amounts of time and money funding resistance/terrorist groups to kill Israelis, spark counterblows, keep the cycle of hatred going, and generate bad press might have a leeeeetle bit to do with it. It's not quite the case that the Israeli PM woke up one day , had a great(?) idea, and wrote 'ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION' on his to do list. It's been a gradually escalating case of tit for tat, action and counterreaction (and sometimes overreaction) for the last thirty years.
So? We're taking about how Israel discriminates their own people (non citizens but they live in an area under their control where Israel has a sovereign claim to).
The neighbours are a dodgy bunch but that doesn't give you any right to keep your daughter in the basement. Citizenship or real Independence, there's no middle ground.
May has folded like a wet piece of paper.. just as leavers have warned the we are leaving in name only..... what fething stich up by the politicos.
Pay them loads of money
Eu court to rule on eu citizens for the next 8 years (over and above the uk court)
And the eu might just talk about trade.
The Maybot is between the devil with a sword and the hard, rock-strewn blue sea.
The Conservative Party owns Brexit lock stock and two barrels. They invented the idea. They offered the referendum and ran the crappy Remain campaign.
Then they basically lost their attempt to become a government strong enough to deliver anything.
Unfortunately everyone knows that Hard Brexit is going to an economic disaster. The only authoritative reports that don’t say that, are the official government ones that David Davis has spent the past 18 months not having written.
May is desperate to avoid this happening, because the fallout will destroy the Conservatives as the party of sound economics for a generation.
The Conservatives though are in a civil war. Most of the party is Remain or soft Leave, but there is a powerful fifth column of Hard Brexiteers. Some of these are in denial about the economic dislocation, others see Brexit as a way of enriching themselves at the country’s expense. E.g. Bozo Johnson hopes he will become Prime Minister.
However, these are powerful people with rich backers. They are capable of unseating May if she doesn’t toe close enough to their line.
What May has done is to craft a text that solves the Ireland Border problem and the European Citizen problem with the absolutely lightest possible touch of EU-ism.
It avoids any specifics, leaving them to be sorted out with more time and effort. It gets us on to the trade talks, which are absolutely crucial.
Most importantly, it’s a deal that the majority of the Conservative Party and the House of Commons can get behind.
Unfortunately everyone knows that Hard Brexit is going to an economic disaster. The only authoritative reports that don’t say that, are the official government ones that David Davis has spent the past 18 months not having written
And the Legatum institute that has been the mind behind the whole thing.
I've got to admit to being mildly surprised to see them reach a deal as despite it being clear everybody wanted to get there it was looking like general incompetence from our glorious leaderette
Well, I think May has got a lot of things wrong, but actually she is charting a very difficult course between Scylla and Charybdis and seems likely to pull through successfuly this time.
I’m going to reserve judgement until I see the final result. Whilst I can except some alignment (that’s to be expected) I hope this doesn’t turn out to be Remain in all but name.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m going to reserve judgement until I see the final result. Whilst I can except some alignment (that’s to be expected) I hope this doesn’t turn out to be Remain in all but name.
May has promised Ireland no hard border. At the same time she has promised DUP no regulatory barriers between NI and the rUK.
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m going to reserve judgement until I see the final result. Whilst I can except some alignment (that’s to be expected) I hope this doesn’t turn out to be Remain in all but name.
It can only be Remain in all but name and influence.
I think we are heading for a situation in which leaving the EU is phased out gradually over a period of 8 years.
There will be an initial transitional two years during which we will effectively remain in the EU for many purposes while setting up the conditions for the next six years during which the ECJ still has some oversight of EU citizens rights and so on. (See the complete text of the announcement for boring but essential details.)
Rather than jumping off a cliff this will be a more careful descent using safety lines and so on, but eventually we will be outside the EU with trade relations set up with them, probably on a basis of shadowing EU regulations to achieve the same end result where necessary to export.
Although I still am convinced that leaving the EU is a major error, the process outlined above at least allows the UK to adjust gradually to the new conditions and gives the best chance of avoiding a sudden collapse.
Like you said, instead of leaping from said cliff, we May now descend slowly and carefully. Granted the sea might still be full of bad tempered mutated sea bass at the end, or it might be full of warm milk.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think we are heading for a situation in which leaving the EU is phased out gradually over a period of 8 years.
There will be an initial transitional two years during which we will effectively remain in the EU for many purposes while setting up the conditions for the next six years during which the ECJ still has some oversight of EU citizens rights and so on. (See the complete text of the announcement for boring but essential details.)
Rather than jumping off a cliff this will be a more careful descent using safety lines and so on, but eventually we will be outside the EU with trade relations set up with them, probably on a basis of shadowing EU regulations to achieve the same end result where necessary to export.
Although I still am convinced that leaving the EU is a major error, the process outlined above at least allows the UK to adjust gradually to the new conditions and gives the best chance of avoiding a sudden collapse.
Agreed. This is actually a reasonable settlement. The financial aspect is not too onerous. The ECJ will continue to have a role in citizens rights after departure, which I think was utterly outrageous as a demand to begin with, but is limited to eight years and goes both ways. That I can swallow. A similar period of time for protection over living and working? Sure, that's not a problem. And in both of those cases, it goes both ways again. Reciprocation is the key word, which when allied with a preset time limit, is A ok.
No, I'm actually quite happy with that. It could all still be sunk by the Irish border of course, but they've another year or so to hammer that one out now.
I think the loony wing of the party is relatively small and May will carry the moderates with her. Remember that the majority of MPs of all parties are anti-Brexit.
The real worry is what the powers behind the scenes will do, but that depends on how much they feel their tax havens are threatened by the current roadmap.
I read that the EU was pushing for a 15 year period and May proposed 5, so to settle on 8 is pretty good. Yes it does suck that they demanded it in the first place but still. Is there any news about the customs union and fishing rights?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I suspect May is toast. Not because of what's been agreed, but because it's clearly not what Gove and Johnson were angling for.
Knives out, gentlemen....new PM by Christmas?
Is there a chance that BoJo could use his foreign officer powers to get Russian assassins after May?
I mean it would be a page out of a James Bond novel, but imagine the headlines.
If we're being honest here, this is a deal that doesn't really satisfy anybody, and the ball has well and truly been booted into the long grass.
The Tory civil war, which has been rumbling away for decades, will well and truly have to be battled over to the death in 2018. There can be only one, as a certain film franchise once said.
But those are battles for another day. We're coming to Xmas and New Year, so I would say to everybody enjoy the holidays, and forget about the upcoming battles until 2018
I read that the EU was pushing for a 15 year period and May proposed 5, so to settle on 8 is pretty good. Yes it does suck that they demanded it in the first place but still. Is there any news about the customs union and fishing rights?
I thought you'd be overjoyed at the prospect of keeping your EU citizenship
I read in the Guardian that the whole of the UK is leaving the CU. I didn't see anything about fishing rights.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I suspect May is toast. Not because of what's been agreed, but because it's clearly not what Gove and Johnson were angling for.
Knives out, gentlemen....new PM by Christmas?
Is there a chance that BoJo could use his foreign officer powers to get Russian assassins after May?
I mean it would be a page out of a James Bond novel, but imagine the headlines.
I seriously wouldn't put it past him.
Mind you, he's got to make it out of Iran first....
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the loony wing of the party is relatively small and May will carry the moderates with her. Remember that the majority of MPs of all parties are anti-Brexit.
The real worry is what the powers behind the scenes will do, but that depends on how much they feel their tax havens are threatened by the current roadmap.
You're forgetting that the rest of the EU27 have to ratify a deal, so it's all academic if a 3 man parliament in Flanders pulls the plug on the whole thing a la Canada.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I suspect May is toast. Not because of what's been agreed, but because it's clearly not what Gove and Johnson were angling for.
Knives out, gentlemen....new PM by Christmas?
According the 1922 committee rules, and according to the rules of the house of commons, there couldn't be a general election until at least Febuary, and the Tory leadership contest couldn't happen until least January.
We will finish 2017 with May as PM
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Warm milk, honey and off-shore tax havens, is what the Hard Brexiteers are hoping for.
Well, I looking forward to nationalised trains again, and a generous VAT cut for the Highlands and Islands
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the loony wing of the party is relatively small and May will carry the moderates with her. Remember that the majority of MPs of all parties are anti-Brexit.
The real worry is what the powers behind the scenes will do, but that depends on how much they feel their tax havens are threatened by the current roadmap.
You're forgetting that the rest of the EU27 have to ratify a deal, so it's all academic if a 3 man parliament in Flanders pulls the plug on the whole thing a la Canada.
...
You are forgetting that the Canada deal got past the Flanders crew in a few weeks.
Also, as Brexiteers are now fond of pointing out, the veto power is expected to be replaced by qualified majority voting, which apparently is a bad thing the same as a veto is a bad thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the loony wing of the party is relatively small and May will carry the moderates with her. Remember that the majority of MPs of all parties are anti-Brexit.
The real worry is what the powers behind the scenes will do, but that depends on how much they feel their tax havens are threatened by the current roadmap.
You're forgetting that the rest of the EU27 have to ratify a deal, so it's all academic if a 3 man parliament in Flanders pulls the plug on the whole thing a la Canada.
...
You are forgetting that the Canada deal got past the Flanders crew in a few weeks.
Also, as Brexiteers are now fond of pointing out, the veto power is expected to be replaced by qualified majority voting, which apparently is a bad thing the same as a veto is a bad thing.
Her next big hurdle is the cabinet meeting in which they have finally to thrash out what they want to aim for in the trade deal. This has to happen in the next two weeks.
From a purely, Devil's Advocate, Scottish Independence viewpoint, it's an early Xmas present for the SNP.
Because if Northern Ireland gets special treatment, then the logical question will be: why can't Scotland get the same?
And also, a lot of anti-independence arguments collapse into rubble, because if there's no hard Irish border, then nobody can argue for a hard border at the River Tweed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If we're being honest here, this is a deal that doesn't really satisfy anybody, and the ball has well and truly been booted into the long grass.
Speak for yourself. I'm reasonably satisfied. I can look at everything that's been announced and either say 'That's fair', or 'That's not great, but has a time limit, so sure'.
Future War Cultist wrote:@ Ketera
I read that the EU was pushing for a 15 year period and May proposed 5, so to settle on 8 is pretty good. Yes it does suck that they demanded it in the first place but still. Is there any news about the customs union and fishing rights?
There's a commitment to keeping politices on Ireland's border roughly aligned, as well as a commitment not to put a border in the Irish sea. So that particular ball has been rolled over for another day, and we're going to have people pushing to use that angle to keep us in the common market. Which is fine if they want to, everyone has an opinion. Maybe it'll happen, maybe not. I would speculate that to be honest, with another few years to work it out, they'll likely thrash out a custom agreement. We'll be part of some stuff with no oversight, independent on others, get slightly preferential access to the common market, but not as much as we might like, etc.
Nothing on fishing, that'll be in future trade talks.
As the BBC put it, the watchword of the day is compromise. Which is good. Everyone is walking away going, 'Yeah. I can stomach this'. It's not perfect, but it's acceptable, and reasonable. And given that it just popped more or less out of the blue, it goes to show that actually, the constant scaremongering by the media and various party politics might not actually be the best way to gauge progress.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I suspect May is toast. Not because of what's been agreed, but because it's clearly not what Gove and Johnson were angling for.
Knives out, gentlemen....new PM by Christmas?
I don't see them making a move yet. Sun Tzu say don't fight a battle until you have already won and I'm not sure either of them could unite the Tory party atm.
I can see Boris waiting for the referendum on the deal and then campaigning against it because it doesn't benefit us enough!
The labour moderates showed earlier in the year that if you make a move to oust your leader and fail, all you achieve is to abdicate all influence over the direction of your party.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: From a purely, Devil's Advocate, Scottish Independence viewpoint, it's an early Xmas present for the SNP.
Because if Northern Ireland gets special treatment, then the logical question will be: why can't Scotland get the same?
And also, a lot of anti-independence arguments collapse into rubble, because if there's no hard Irish border, then nobody can argue for a hard border at the River Tweed.
No wonder Sturgeon's happy.
Northern Ireland isn't getting special treatment, except insofar as it is the only land border with an EU state, and has the special consideration of the Good Friday Agreement.
Neither of these factors applies to Scotland, which in any case will benefit from the arrangement to the same degree as the whole of the rest of the UK and Northern Ireland.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the loony wing of the party is relatively small and May will carry the moderates with her. Remember that the majority of MPs of all parties are anti-Brexit.
The real worry is what the powers behind the scenes will do, but that depends on how much they feel their tax havens are threatened by the current roadmap.
You're forgetting that the rest of the EU27 have to ratify a deal, so it's all academic if a 3 man parliament in Flanders pulls the plug on the whole thing a la Canada.
...
You are forgetting that the Canada deal got past the Flanders crew in a few weeks.
Also, as Brexiteers are now fond of pointing out, the veto power is expected to be replaced by qualified majority voting, which apparently is a bad thing the same as a veto is a bad thing.
The tyranny of the majority?
You can either have a veto or not have a veto. If you see both these situations as bad, I am afraid that Churchill's Maxim comes into play.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Well, I suspect May is toast. Not because of what's been agreed, but because it's clearly not what Gove and Johnson were angling for.
Knives out, gentlemen....new PM by Christmas?
I don't see them making a move yet. Sun Tzu say don't fight a battle until you have already won and I'm not sure either of them could unite the Tory party atm.
I can see Boris waiting for the referendum on the deal and then campaigning against it because it doesn't benefit us enough!
The labour moderates showed earlier in the year that if you make a move to oust your leader and fail, all you achieve is to abdicate all influence over the direction of your party.
Pretty sure the labour 'moderates' choked, because they conflated the Parliamentary Labour party with being the entirety of the Labour Party?
Kilkrazy wrote: Then Corbyn increased their vote share from 26% to 40% showing the party he was not electoral poison.
Nothing succeeds like success.
However I do think he needs to get the party to stand up clearly for something positive, especially around the Brexit issue.
If you lose, then 40% of the vote is essentially 40% of zero. But I concede that he did even better than I predicted.
As to the earlier point on the Irish border, it's the principal here, plus the fact that 2/3rds of Scotland voted to stay in the EU, plus a lot of mischief making from the SNP = another major headache for May.
Like I said earlier, the ball has been booted into the long grass, but a lawnmower is heading towards that grass.
Something has to give. 2018 is going to be another cracker if you're into politics. Tory civil war, Scotland, EU negotiations. North Korea, Middle East. We'd be fools to predict anything.
Death and taxes are your only certainties in life, as somebody once said.
London may well need it, simply because due to decades of idiocy, so much wealth is centred on it, it's the lynchpin of our economy.
I work in Docklands, and this place is the capital of Europe's banking capital. When Brexit happens, there's a real risk this area could get verrrrry quiet.
Plus, London did vote Remain. I mostly object to areas that vote Leave now demanding special treatment to make up for their act of self sabotage. If you're dependant on EU Grants, you shouldn't have vote Leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mind you, I say decades of Londoncentric idiocy.....
If it hadn't, I wonder if it'd be a Leave vote after all? It's the deprived areas that are hacked off (and not without justification), and been told it's the EU's fault (and not Westminster. Not at all. Must be the EU. Honest, Guv)
The 2 major places that voted leave are the North, and Wales. Both of whom are regarded as the poorest parts of the UK. London, Scotland and Ireland voted remain.
Grimsby isn't dependant on EU grants, though half the cost of their shiny new fish market was paid by the EU Fishing Development Fund.
Grimsby's problem is that they export a lot of fish to the EU, either fresh -- thus liable to spoilage if any customs delays -- or processed, which under new tariffs will become a lot more expensive and liable to be replaced by the EU processing locally.
Gosh! It's almost as if kicking yourself out of the world's biggest, richest free trade area might be a bad idea if you want to do big, rich, free trading.
They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
Future War Cultist wrote: They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
Future War Cultist wrote: They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
Customs equivalence and single market access. It's like being in the customs union and single market but with a different name.
(This above post contains: Sarcasm, nuts and flu capsules.)
But we can veto it... wait.
A Veto which is going to be replaced by Qualified Majority Voting.
Only if it doesn't get vetoed
Which none of our pro-EU mainstream parties prior to the Referendum would have done.
Remember, David Cameron was pro-EU and pledged to campaign to stay in the EU even if he couldn't get any meaningful concessions or reform from the EU prior to the Referendum (which he did not).
If we'd voted to Remain, the EU would have taken that as a Carte Blanche to push even more Integration like QMV and the pro-EUPM Cameron would have conceded it (perhaps in exchange for a few bribes), like how Gordon Brown signed the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty.
For Euro-sceptics, it was a Catch-22:
Do we vote to Remain and trust our pro_EU parties who all have a track record of ceding British Sovereignty to the EU, therefore risking that our Government might agree to give up our Veto for QMV? Or we vote to Leave and not trust our untrustworthy (from a Eurosceptic POV) Parties?
Future War Cultist wrote: They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
What they've effectively done is punted the Irish ball to the third round, the one on trade. Everything said today had the clear and express caveat 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. In other words, everything is provisional. Its all just statements of intent. What has been actually agreed is that given an eventual trade agreement being successful, we're willing to pay about 40 billion in meeting our costs, and we've hammered out how all our citizens will function in regards to each other post-Brexit.
The next step is establishing the interim period. So they'll sit down, and draw up a timetable for a phased general departure from EU structures and laws, and guidelines on how trade should function whilst the trade agreement is being hammered out. This should be the shortest and easiest phase.That done, we'll move to the final step, which will be using the guidelines established in phase 1 & 2 to sit down and work out exactly how trade will work post-Brexit. This will likely take a number of years, and is in effect, us doing a Canada or Japan, and negotiating a custom trade agreement with the EU.
I would suspect that the eight year expiry date for the involvement of the ECJ will likely be used as the intended cessation point for all British involvement in the EU. In which case, the whole procedure will take a decade from beginning to end. But you know something? I'm happy with that. If that gets us solutions that work for everyone, minimal disruption to all economies involved, and restores the goodwill on both sides, that is fine by me. Time is one thing that we are not short of, precluding nuclear armageddon. An initial staggered soft Brexit that gradually slides into a custom tailored hard brexit is very much the best solution for all parties involved.
On reflection, and having read some of the agreement, it's a terrible deal - concentrated bollocks.
8 years for the ECJ? I'm reluctant to give them 8 minutes, never mind 8 years, and it looks as though EU citizens will have better rights in the UK than I do in the land of my birth
Angry? Yes. Surprised? No. When faced with what's best for Britain, and what's best for the Conservative party, then party comes first every time. Add a Remain supporting, lame duck PM to the mix, and I'm only surprised May didn't suggest giving Hadrian's Wall back to the Italians.
I will say to my fellow Brexit supporting dakka members, is that the good news is that this is not legally binding - it's only an agreement for the basis of discussing an agreement i.e trade deal.
Hopefully, the whole thing will collapse, because the noises coming out the EU parliament is along the lines of wanting more ECJ in Britain after Brexit, which cannot be allowed for even a nano-second.
The battle ain't over yet. Predict nothing, expect anything.
Future War Cultist wrote: They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
What they've effectively done is punted the Irish ball to the third round, the one on trade. Everything said today had the clear and express caveat 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. In other words, everything is provisional. Its all just statements of intent. What has been actually agreed is that given an eventual trade agreement being successful, we're willing to pay about 40 billion in meeting our costs, and we've hammered out how all our citizens will function in regards to each other post-Brexit.
The next step is establishing the interim period. So they'll sit down, and draw up a timetable for a phased general departure from EU structures and laws, and guidelines on how trade should function whilst the trade agreement is being hammered out. This should be the shortest and easiest phase.That done, we'll move to the final step, which will be using the guidelines established in phase 1 & 2 to sit down and work out exactly how trade will work post-Brexit. This will likely take a number of years, and is in effect, us doing a Canada or Japan, and negotiating a custom trade agreement with the EU.
I would suspect that the eight year expiry date for the involvement of the ECJ will likely be used as the intended cessation point for all British involvement in the EU. In which case, the whole procedure will take a decade from beginning to end. But you know something? I'm happy with that. If that gets us solutions that work for everyone, minimal disruption to all economies involved, and restores the goodwill on both sides, that is fine by me. Time is one thing that we are not short of, precluding nuclear armageddon. An initial staggered soft Brexit that gradually slides into a custom tailored hard brexit is very much the best solution for all parties involved.
8 years is an eternity in politics, though. Who knows what will hapen to the EU, the UK, or the wider world in 8 years...As we all know, these talks don't happen in a vacuum.
Although, I do agree with the basic gist of your summary.
The most important and symbolic thing here though is we're leaving the EU. We're at the airport. Yes, we could still turn around and go home, and that's a danger, but the very dint that we're preparing to board a plane for a new destination is a victory in itself.
The 19th and 20th centuries belonged to Europe and the USA. The 21st century is Asia's.
Everyone in the UK should live under the same law, for better or for worse. May and her crowd are just making the worst job of this, sad. She doesn’t have any real authority, she threw away her majority in the house and is held to the whims of dubious allies and various quacks in her own party. She’s only there because there’s no one with the competency or gumption to challenge her.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Everyone in the UK should live under the same law, for better or for worse. May and her crowd are just making the worst job of this, sad. She doesn’t have any real authority, she threw away her majority in the house and is held to the whims of dubious allies and various quacks in her own party. She’s only there because there’s no one with the competency or gumption to challenge her.
The Conservative party rolled up the white flag to A.Hitler in 1938, botched Suez, took us into the EEC in the first place, gave us Black Wednesday, scuppered Irish Home Rule, fethed up the trains and the housing situation, and think that Bojo is worthy of high office. x 1000
They have been nothing but a milestone around this nation's neck for centuries, but for reasons I will never understand, even if I live for a million years, people still vote for them...
Why? Why? Why?
This zombie party should have been swept away years ago. A genuine Conservative party I can handle, but not this mockery.
Future War Cultist wrote: They say that all of the uk is leaving both the customs union and the single market. They also say that there won't be a hard boarder between the north and south of Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the uk. Did they say how they did this exactly?
What they've effectively done is punted the Irish ball to the third round, the one on trade. Everything said today had the clear and express caveat 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'. In other words, everything is provisional. Its all just statements of intent. What has been actually agreed is that given an eventual trade agreement being successful, we're willing to pay about 40 billion in meeting our costs, and we've hammered out how all our citizens will function in regards to each other post-Brexit.
Read between the lines.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
"Fully aligned" on one side and "unfettered access" on the other.
Short of taking Ireland out of the EU there's just not much to do and keep both sides' promises.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
This is the critical part of the agreement - in that no agreement has been reached. It effectively parks the issue with May/Davis believing that a trade deal will get over the barrier. But if anything it shows they are simply living in cloud cuckoo land (still). They obviously think that UK trade is so important to the EU that they will agree some form of "closed borders but looks like open type of approach".
The thing that will haunt May by nutcase hard Brexit MPs is this:-
In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
The EU simply have the UK over a barrel now. They must be laughing all the way home (not that I am opposed to such a thing because I support the EU rather than the UK in this whole stupidity). The EU can simply walk away from anything they don't like. The UK then has only two options - go full hard Wrexit or simply accept that it continues to be part of the EU (except it doesn't get a say) and complies with all the regulations. Whatever bargaining chips the UK had have disappeared completely.
I don't see the problem? It says that the goal is to 'achieve this through the overall EU-UK relationship'. Also known as punting the Irish question forward to being part of stage 3, the general trade agreement.
If the Irish issue fails to be solved as part of that more general negotiation, then that'll be the point at which 'the UK will propose specific solutions' (aka, negotiations will begin purely on the Irish question alone).
It's only then, if negotiations fail there, that the UK commits to 'maintain full alignment', but it leaves itself the backdoor of being able to institute fresh changes/laws so long as it can get the Northern Ireland Executive to agree to them. In other words, Westminster would then collaborate with the Northern Ireland Executive on what new laws and regulations would be put in place at the border. As it should be, really.
Given that this entire procedure will take the best part of the next decade, I see no reason to start speculating now about what happens if those two prior rounds of negotiation fail. Trying to figure out what regulations might be appropriate to put in place subsequent to that is utterly pointless given we're only just starting to delineate the framework of the interim period! This is all going to be a long and convoluted process, and given that the option is quite clearly there for us to do as we will (so long as it is in collaboration with the NIA) if all falls through, there's no real issue. Anyone either celebrating or complaining that 'We'll be bound into the EU framework with no say' is missing or ignoring half the text.
Ketara wrote: I don't see the problem? It says that the goal is to 'achieve this through the overall EU-UK relationship'. Also known as punting the Irish question forward to being part of stage 3, the general trade agreement.
If the Irish issue fails to be solved as part of that more general negotiation, then that'll be the point at which 'the UK will propose specific solutions' (aka, negotiations will begin purely on the Irish question alone).
Except the EU doesn't have to agree to any of it and can walk away at any point. The overall EU-UK relationship for the EU's perspective could simply be open trade, free movement. It doesn't even have to negotiate. It can simply say "unless you allow free movement / free trade across the border we won't accept anything". The UK then has to propose something that complies with that. If it doesn't then they have to fall to the back stop position, i.e. free movement and free trade across the Irish border. As soon as you have that then you have to open it up to everyone because our own legislation guarantees equal rights (Scotland, London etc would demand it) - and if you don't the Ireland/NI then becomes the trade hub of the UK.
They have put a back stop position in the terms that only benefits the EU (again not that I am opposed to this). In negotiating terms that's a 'slam dunk' victory because you have just put the opposite side in an impossible position. The only way they can escape is going full hard Wrexit and even they know that is political and economical suicide for the UK.
And if the EU walks blocks all Irish progress during two prior rounds of negotiations (which they're unlikely to do if we have a reasonable trade agreement, Ireland has needs too and is a full member), we can still put any regulations or restrictions we want in place. They just have to go via the NIA.
At which point, Westminster would doubtless put a bill to the NIA with a detailed regulations and adjustments that would have been worked out in the intervening decade, get it passed/adjust it until it was able to be passed/bung them lots of money/subsidies to pass it, and we'll have a hard border along Ireland which complies with our more general trade agreement with the EU. The real final power brokers on the Irish question are the NIA if all else fails, not the EU.
Ketara wrote: And if the EU walks blocks all Irish progress during two prior rounds of negotiations (which they're unlikely to do if we have a reasonable trade agreement, Ireland has needs too and is a full member), we can still put any regulations or restrictions we want in place. They just have to go via the NIA.
At which point, Westminster would doubtless put a bill to the NIA with a detailed regulations and adjustments that would have been worked out in the intervening decade, get it passed/adjust it until it was able to be passed/bung them lots of money/subsidies to pass it, and we'll have a hard border along Ireland which complies with our more general trade agreement with the EU. The real final power brokers on the Irish question are the NIA if all else fails, not the EU.
Which is as it should be.
Which is something the Westminster would never countenance because of the issues that could cause and issues with the Good Friday agreement. There might still not be a NIA (or it might collapse again). Yes the Ireland does have trade with NI but it is the movement that is important. If you introduce free trade/movement through the NI border with an NIA then you still have the same result. Free trade and movement and you then come back to the same item that you are treating different parts of the UK (which is also against acts and even this agreement).
Westminster will not again accept a hard border with Ireland in any way. The EU know this. Hence any agreement has to be to the benefit of the EU, otherwise they can just say 'no'. The UK government will not accept going back to border checks. The UK then has no option to accept EU customs and laws.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Everyone in the UK should live under the same law, for better or for worse. May and her crowd are just making the worst job of this, sad. She doesn’t have any real authority, she threw away her majority in the house and is held to the whims of dubious allies and various quacks in her own party. She’s only there because there’s no one with the competency or gumption to challenge her.
We already don't, and haven't for centuries. The Scottish legal system is separate and different to England's. The devolved administrations have various powers of setting different conditions, effectively local laws, on things such as abortion, university fees and NHS prescription charges.
I don't really have a problem with that. I believe in the principle of subsidiarity.
Ironically, the insistence of the EU on making crucial laws (on trade, human rights, etc) consistent in their effect across the whole EU, offers the best chance of some kind of "same law" if that is what you think we need.
If the Irish issue fails to be solved as part of that more general negotiation, then that'll be the point at which 'the UK will propose specific solutions' (aka, negotiations will begin purely on the Irish question alone).
Such as? The UK has bound their hands by promising two mutually exclusive sets of things.
They can't keep the integrity of the Irish single market and the single UK market without effectively keeping EU rules. It's the Brexit Travel paradox again.
Unless they manage to convince Ireland to tag along in their post-EU adventure, that is.
I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
Of course we wouldn't be leaving the EU and causing untold harm to the Country's future if that was the case!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
It's not that they can't, more that the UK will always be subject to the idea that if no agreement is thrashed out then things fall into place that we remain part of the customs union/open trade. Now I am not opposed to such a thing and think that will mean a more seamless rejoining of the EU when the population 'migrates' towards the current pro-EU young/educated and the older/less educated (generally) anti-EU ideas.
On the other hand what the UK has done here has effectively tied its laces together whilst trying to win a 100m sprint (of course not that many people would notice given it has put its underpants on its head and pencils in it's nostrils). The EU have very little reason to give much ground because the back stop position is set so high.
The fundamental problem, as I pointed out earlier, that there are groups of Hard Brexiteers who either are in a state of magical thinking about the whole outcome, or don't care if there is a disaster because they think they will benefit anyway (e.g. become Prime Minister, or keep their off-shore tax haven, and so on.)
On an opposite note, Radio 4 went to Stoke-on-Trent today to get the reaction of locals in what they said was the UK centre of Remain voting (70+%.)
Frankly it was appalling to hear how uninformed and deluded the interviewees were about the whole issue!
It made me ashamed to be a Remainer. But possibly the BBC selected completely biased recordings.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: £1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.
And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.
Some great race/religious hate you got going there. Throw in a little stereotyping and a that makes for a lovely comment there buddy. A shake of ignorance and tadada!
I await your evidential list of flat earthing, hanging homosexuals and being scared of old ladies with warts. Add in a a guardian article on bad Northern Ireland unionists just for a laugh too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
But then again when you have a MOD using language like ’feth off and die’ you just know these are good people right here.
I know someone from Stoke. They do not have good things to say about the people there. It's akin to too much of a small family group all living together for too long and getting too friendly.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: £1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.
And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.
Some great race/religious hate you got going there. Throw in a little stereotyping and a that makes for a lovely comment there buddy. A shake of ignorance and tadada!
I await your evidential list of flat earthing, hanging homosexuals and being scared of old ladies with warts. Add in a a guardian article on bad Northern Ireland unionists just for a laugh too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
But then again when you have a MOD using language like ’feth off and die’ you just know these are good people right here.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: £1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.
And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.
Some great race/religious hate you got going there. Throw in a little stereotyping and a that makes for a lovely comment there buddy. A shake of ignorance and tadada!
I await your evidential list of flat earthing, hanging homosexuals and being scared of old ladies with warts. Add in a a guardian article on bad Northern Ireland unionists just for a laugh too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
But then again when you have a MOD using language like ’feth off and die’ you just know these are good people right here.
Ad Hominem fallacy.
Didn't you tell a Remainer to "Tone it down please" for using similar language a week ago?
So? We're taking about how Israel discriminates their own people (non citizens but they live in an area under their control where Israel has a sovereign claim to).
The neighbours are a dodgy bunch but that doesn't give you any right to keep your daughter in the basement. Citizenship or real Independence, there's no middle ground.
Frankly, we're talking about Israel, a place where even their fellow Jews are subhuman if they're the wrong brand of Judaism.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: £1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.
And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.
Some great race/religious hate you got going there. Throw in a little stereotyping and a that makes for a lovely comment there buddy. A shake of ignorance and tadada!
I await your evidential list of flat earthing, hanging homosexuals and being scared of old ladies with warts. Add in a a guardian article on bad Northern Ireland unionists just for a laugh too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
But then again when you have a MOD using language like ’feth off and die’ you just know these are good people right here.
Ad Hominem fallacy.
Didn't you tell a Remainer to "Tone it down please" for using similar language a week ago?
Indeed. Abuse of MOD privilege. Should be removed from his position, but it won’t happen. I mean actually saying people should go away and die.
It’s never helpful to tell anyone to feth off and die. Especially when that comment could be directed at a poster who doesn’t like the current deal. Posters like DINLT for example. If I was to say that everyone who took the EU’s side during the negotiations should feth off and die, would that be allowed to stand? No, it wouldn’t.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: £1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.
And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.
Some great race/religious hate you got going there. Throw in a little stereotyping and a that makes for a lovely comment there buddy. A shake of ignorance and tadada!
I await your evidential list of flat earthing, hanging homosexuals and being scared of old ladies with warts. Add in a a guardian article on bad Northern Ireland unionists just for a laugh too!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you underestimate the ability of the EU and British negotiators to hammer out a remarkably complicated, flexible and acceptable arrangement.
We should be honest and recognise that Hard Brexiteers and the DUP are the key obstacles to overcome, and they are minorities though endowed with greater power than their democratic mandate would indicate.
To put it in plainer language, if the rest of the nations could summon the courage to tell these people to feth off and die, the problem would be easily solved.
But then again when you have a MOD using language like ’feth off and die’ you just know these are good people right here.
Ad Hominem fallacy.
Didn't you tell a Remainer to "Tone it down please" for using similar language a week ago?
Indeed. Abuse of MOD privilege. Should be removed from his position, but it won’t happen. I mean actually saying people should go away and die.
Thats a bit extreme, I don't agree with that, he's a good Mod otherwise. I just think Mods should sometimes recuse themselves from certain threads that they're emotionally invested in.
Knockagh wrote: I mean actually saying people should go away and die.
Yep, the thread trolls are jumping up and down again! And I've been so nice! But then if hard brexiteers and other scum 'fethed off and died', who would I make fun of for their fashion sense? I mean, seriously, that combination of SS Runes and Union Jack vest ...
I mean,seriously, all these guys do, all day, is work to hard prove me right about them.
Knockagh wrote: I mean actually saying people should go away and die.
Yep, the thread trolls are jumping up and down again!
Trolls? Its about keeping the thread civil and constructive. Its about both sides policing and restraining themselves against inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks.
How would you, or any Remainers in this thread like it if I said "The EU can feth off and die!" Or "Remainer traitors can feth off and die!"
You'd be offended, naturally. You'd probably respond with an angry retort. And things would get out of hand. Again.
Can we all please just make a concerted effort not to piss each other off?
Calm your farms people, if you have an issue with a mod raise it via pm as you know you should, future people derailing a thread by whining about it will get a warning for dragging a thread off topic
motyak wrote: Calm your farms people, if you have an issue with a mod raise it via pm as you know you should, future people derailing a thread by whining about it will get a warning for dragging a thread off topic
Sorry I was unaware of any procedure to make a complaint. I will PM you and keep the thread updated with any outcome.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You'd be offended, naturally. You'd probably respond with an angry retort. And things would get out of hand. Again.
Cap, only three people have ever managed to genuinely offend me on this forum, two are banned (or just left and never came back, not too clear), and HillPlace here is the third, and I don't hold out good odds on his remaining ban free in the long term either.
Believe me when I say it takes way more than suggesting I go and die in some horrible manner. I've been resuscitated three times, and while my occasional resurrection has been enlightening, it's not for everyone.
I believed my remarks would be understood by their context to refer to the Hard Brexiteer members of the Conservative government, and the DUP, however it seems I have offended several forum members, and for that I am sorry.
Kilkrazy wrote: I believed my remarks would be understood by their context to refer to the Hard Brexiteer members of the Conservative government, and the DUP, however it seems I have offended several forum members, and for that I am sorry.
I’m sorry too, for having a go at you. I see now what you meant. Are we cool?
Alright points are made. Let’s move on and try and be civil to everyone regardless of which party they vote for, religion they believe in or economic policies they follow. Let’s hope no one dies because that’s never cool.
In relevant news, prime Brexiteer Gove has said the population will be able to change the final deal at the next general election.
How is that going to work, considering the next general election is 3 years after the UK leaves the EU, unless the government resigns or is defeated in a No Confidence motion.
Even if there was a massive swing towards a party with a pro EU position at the next election it would be to late. Getting back in could take years and we would be in a much weaker position than before.
Kilkrazy wrote: In relevant news, prime Brexiteer Gove has said the population will be able to change the final deal at the next general election.
How is that going to work, considering the next general election is 3 years after the UK leaves the EU, unless the government resigns or is defeated in a No Confidence motion.
I think perhaps it is trying to dissuade increasing calls for another referendum in that we can have our say at the next election. They don't want another referendum because it *might* overturn the result especially as more people are becoming aware of what it actually means.
What they fail to point out that by this time they hope to have gerrymandered the electorate boundaries to make it even more difficult for anyone other than the Tories to win.
Of course I'm not sure we'll ever persuade people like these:-
Kilkrazy wrote: In relevant news, prime Brexiteer Gove has said the population will be able to change the final deal at the next general election.
How is that going to work, considering the next general election is 3 years after the UK leaves the EU, unless the government resigns or is defeated in a No Confidence motion.
He means that trade deals with Europe can be changed easily by future governments as the deals won’t be bound up by the legislative restrictions involved in actual EU membership. Once the transition period is complete the UK will be it’s own entity and any new government will be able with relative ease to form new trading agreements or amend existing ones.
Kilkrazy wrote: In relevant news, prime Brexiteer Gove has said the population will be able to change the final deal at the next general election.
How is that going to work, considering the next general election is 3 years after the UK leaves the EU, unless the government resigns or is defeated in a No Confidence motion.
He means that trade deals with Europe can be changed easily by future governments as the deals won’t be bound up by the legislative restrictions involved in actual EU membership. Once the transition period is complete the UK will be it’s own entity and any new government will be able with relative ease to form new trading agreements or amend existing ones.
I imagine that there will be several new governments in quick succession as one after another fails to halt the damage.
UK -“Oh EU, this trade deal just isn’t working for us. We need to jointly renegotiate”
EU - “Can’t say I feel like bothering, so that’s a negatory good buddy”
UK - “Bums”
We just caved in to the EU’s demands to start with. We’re not walking away from this better off. At all.
Sorry yes easy is probably too flippant a word to use but it will be much easier to negotiate deals from the outside as it’s actually impossible from the inside.
I’m in favour of Brexit but I want a slow Brexit a very slow Brexit. I think the 8 to 10 year transition periods are sensible. Business can’t change at speed. A slow Brexit will be a careful Brexit. We knew Brexit meant difficulties ahead but I still feel long term it will be for the best. I employ a number of Eastern Europeans on my farm and I’m encouraging and helping them to apply for citizenship. They all seem happy to do so but that will take time.
Do nothing important in a rush.
You can’t negotiate a better hand if your would be negotiating partner is the one with the better hand.
Slow may be the better idea. But the whole thing remains a daft decision.
In what world are we going to come out well of any trade negotiations? What exactly is our best hand? What precisely is it that we have that other nations and unions want that they can’t get from somewhere else and in greater quantity?
Blind optimism just isn’t going to cut it. Whether disastrously so or not, we’re the ones to get the poopy end of the Stick.
We’ll be negotiating with the EU to start, yes? And when they get us right over the barrel, do you think any other prospective trade partners are gonna seek anything less?
Sorry yes easy is probably too flippant a word to use but it will be much easier to negotiate deals from the outside as it’s actually impossible from the inside.
I’m in favour of Brexit but I want a slow Brexit a very slow Brexit. I think the 8 to 10 year transition periods are sensible. Business can’t change at speed. A slow Brexit will be a careful Brexit. We knew Brexit meant difficulties ahead but I still feel long term it will be for the best. I employ a number of Eastern Europeans on my farm and I’m encouraging and helping them to apply for citizenship. They all seem happy to do so but that will take time.
Do nothing important in a rush.
We'll always be worse on the outside. You lose to much from having to run everything on your own. You have less say, influence and so on. It's not like we will collapse but we will fall further and further behind compared to larger conglomerations or nations simply because you can't effect the efficiencies of scale they can implement. You only have to look at businesses as an example. It is the larger companies that are more robust and generate the most profit. Yes some areas aren't as successful but overall you gain much more from being in that larger organisation.
It's delusional to think that we are going to get any better trade deals than are already out there. More important countries are already stating that the UK can't get better terms than they are.
and we haven't progressed getting anywhere near any trade deals post Brexit whereas the EU are getting more and more under their belt. For example because of all the Wrexit issues it was missed that the EU has just agreed a trade agreement with Japan
Yet this is what we get when people state they want a clear ability to distinguish between the left and right. What we are getting is a hard right and hard left and the realistic centre ground is losing a voice because of it. Both the hard right of the Tories and hard left of labour will do no benefits to the country in the end.
Yet a defined left and right is exactly what this country has been missing.
Consider the 2010 election. We had a choice between Tory, Diet Tory and seemingly Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory.
And since then, the Tories have been beholden to the swivel eyed loonies in their ranks.
Top it all off with the youngest and the poorest being made to carry the can for situations not of their own making, is it really any surprise that we’re seeing a resurgence of socialist thinking? The current Tory brand of capitalism has solely benefited those lucky enough to jump on the gravy train when it first pulled away. Everyone too young to be there at the time has been utterly shafted. Cost of living rising, house prices going insane, and an artificial suppression of wages.
The along comes Jeremy Corbyn, who explains it really doesn’t need to be this way. A shadow cabinet who can readily explain that whilst some socialist policies cost money in the short term, they can and will pay for themselves in the long term.
As I’ve repeatedly said, privatisation has utterly failed. Rail costs rising above wages. Electric, Gas and Water Companies charging ‘think of a number’ prices. Hell, in my local area, the council wants to cut funding to public transport, whilst granting themselves a 15% pay rise?
You may bang on about how ‘dangerous’ the hard left are. But I say it’s a necessity to redress the balance. To use a Cameron sound bite - We Can’t Go On Like This. We’ve got a completely clueless government in bed with some truly worrying types - worrying types they had to bribe with money we’d just been told doesn’t actually exist - except when the Tories need to pull their balls from the fire. We’ve got a Health Service on its knees and being quietly privatised.
Neo-liberalism isn’t failing. It’s failed, and miserably so. To undo the decades of damage will take a radical change in direction, and that’s what Labour are promising.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet a defined left and right is exactly what this country has been missing.
Consider the 2010 election. We had a choice between Tory, Diet Tory and seemingly Full Strength Insanity Flavour Tory.
And since then, the Tories have been beholden to the swivel eyed loonies in their ranks.
Top it all off with the youngest and the poorest being made to carry the can for situations not of their own making, is it really any surprise that we’re seeing a resurgence of socialist thinking? The current Tory brand of capitalism has solely benefited those lucky enough to jump on the gravy train when it first pulled away. Everyone too young to be there at the time has been utterly shafted. Cost of living rising, house prices going insane, and an artificial suppression of wages.
The along comes Jeremy Corbyn, who explains it really doesn’t need to be this way. A shadow cabinet who can readily explain that whilst some socialist policies cost money in the short term, they can and will pay for themselves in the long term.
As I’ve repeatedly said, privatisation has utterly failed. Rail costs rising above wages. Electric, Gas and Water Companies charging ‘think of a number’ prices. Hell, in my local area, the council wants to cut funding to public transport, whilst granting themselves a 15% pay rise?
You may bang on about how ‘dangerous’ the hard left are. But I say it’s a necessity to redress the balance. To use a Cameron sound bite - We Can’t Go On Like This. We’ve got a completely clueless government in bed with some truly worrying types - worrying types they had to bribe with money we’d just been told doesn’t actually exist - except when the Tories need to pull their balls from the fire. We’ve got a Health Service on its knees and being quietly privatised.
Neo-liberalism isn’t failing. It’s failed, and miserably so. To undo the decades of damage will take a radical change in direction, and that’s what Labour are promising.
That's all true. but Neo-Liberalism isn't 'Social' Liberalism but they can easily be confused. There has to be a balance between state and businesses. Neo-liberalism can arguably be stated as the causes for such disasters as Grenfell (indirectly) as the state has allowed the watering down of legislation and allowing the controls to be decided by businesses which took the 'lowest reasonable cost' option. The state should be in control of areas where there is a high risk of monopolies (or at least provide a state option as a competitive marker) such as in the energy/rail fairs. However once you get to the point that a political organisation is purging itself of dissidents then you are stepping away from neo-liberalism reductions into social liberalism restrictions. It is the first step towards a dictatorship. Corbyn might not want that but by not looking into the purges and trying to control them then he is giving tacit approval to it (just like May is giving tacit approval to bigotry by pandering to the anti-immigration message, not listening to evidence etc).
I personally think that it was a shame that we lost Ed Milliband as Labour leader. Whether it was the experience of being a leader has changed him but he is more akin the Labour leader I would prefer to see; he is both passionate but also argues rationally.
Momentum are a grass roots group. They’re understandably interested in promoting candidates that share their political views. After all, you wouldn’t expect Gove or Johnson to endorse and support a socialist within the Tories.
The linked story above is pretty much hyperbole and fear mongering, and credits Momentum with far too much. It’s basically someone who doesn’t like Corbyn making stuff up.
Well I can only speak from my own experience in business. The EU has destroyed farming in the UK. It’s left us working for cost price and reliant on subsidies like beggars to make a wage. The most basic and valuable commodity, food, is produced at cost price. It’s obscene. Our workforce face dangers, harsher working conditions and longer hours than 90% of industry and yet most have to make do on minimum wage.
It’s imposed impossible restrictions that are unworkable. This year alone has seen the slurry ban cause chaos across the UK. The wet summer and autumn means farmers have gone into the winter with slurry storage full to capacity and no legal route to get round it until the spring. It’s an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen and all because of rules made by people in Brussels to suit farmers in drier warmer climates. Farmers are only getting through because local uk authorities are turning a blind eye to spreading but if there is an incident, the farmer will be liable for prosecution. A farmer local to me threw himself off a motorway bridge two years ago after a prosecution for slurry pollution, due to unavoidable weather conditions. We aren’t allowed to spread during dry periods when it’s outside season but can spread when it’s wet and in season.
Our standards are some of he highest within Europe, welfare standards much higher than EU legislation and we must compete with cheaper meats within the EU. Dutch chicken has obscene stocking densities that went out in the UK decades ago, halving their production costs. Their anti biotic usage is massively in excess of ours and yet they can import over us with no restrictions. I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food. That’s why we must take things slowly, think about our future and what we want. A race to the bottom? Or a Slow climb to the top, which will involve hard work and determination, with rough times.
But in the end I believe we couldn’t keep going the way we were.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?
What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?
The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.
Of course I would support the miners, our dead textile and dying manufacturing industries. The loss of these and our reliance on London banking and finance is a major problem. One I fear will spread to agriculture. But one that will never be sorted within the context of the EU. The loss of these industries has abandoned vast swathes of people to zero hours contracts, the dole queue and call centres.
A thriving country needs jobs for the people, people producing goods. For home consumption mostly and export too.
Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.
That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?
Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.
When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.
You're right about the trade deals in the sense that while a member of the EU, the UK can't negotiate a separate deal at all, so to be able to negotiate a deal is easier than it being impossible.
I don't think it's going to be easy to negotiate these deals, though. We're abandoning the deals we are part of by being in the EU -- the new Japan deal has just been agreed, for instance.
I also don't see why we think we will be better at negotiating deals than the EU already is.
As for standards, the way to deal with that is to be a member of the EU and use our significant weight as one of the most important countries, to make the EU apply equal standards to the Dutch.
We're not going to manage it better from outside the EU.
The deals won’t be easy no. But that’s why a long transition period is essential.
We will be able to negotiate better deals because we can more flexible. The EU because of its nature is inflexible. We will always have trade between the UK and Europe it’s crazy to suggest otherwise. Business within the EU will never turn its back on any market.
As for farming/supermarkets/EU/UK gov I know we can’t keep going. I know governments in the first world care little for rural dwellers and rural industry. It’s all about the cities now, that’s not changing anytime soon. The best we can hope for is a more flexible approach to rules, which should improve standard here and hopefully a more protectionist market within the UK will develop.
I’m not sure we’re you got the idea i believe in free market capitalism? Personally I think globalisation has been the worst thing to happen the UK, I like market protection, home grown industry and jobs at home. Local markets are safe markets. Globalisation has destroyed industry. Strangely this was very much the view of Corbyn until he realised he could ride the popularism of the anti Brexit tsunami. But that’s politics!
Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.
That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?
Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.
When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.
It is the EUs doing.
If you're paying for something and you find out that if you pay less, someone else will cover the loss what do you do?
You pay less obviously. They are using the system to save money.
Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.
That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?
Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.
When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.
It is the EUs doing.
If you're paying for something and you find out that if you pay less, someone else will cover the loss what do you do?
You pay less obviously. They are using the system to save money.
Absolutely, we can bemoan supermarkets all we like. But they are purely doing what any business would do, exploiting a loophole in costs. I might not like it but it’s a commercial reality.
Just as an aside. The modern left forget it was Maggie Thatcher who took us into Europe fully and embraced it as a tool for global capitalism. And guess what that’s what it still is. The modern right has by and large recognised their mistake and are backtracking.
We have here a once in a generation chance to sort out our economy so let’s get stuck in. Warts and all. Don’t let the extremists on left or right ruin this with an age old power struggle.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?
What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?
The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.
Supermarkets pay market rates (slightly above actually). Those rates are generally fixed around world prices because there are quotas on how much of X you can bring from abroad.
Big food distro lobbies for higher quotas, farmers lobby for lower quotas.
Britain on its own would devastate British farming in a couple years as long as they open the floodgates of foreign produce.
And yes, Britain would have to open their doors to foreign stuff because otherwise they won't open theirs to British services and high-tech manufacturing.
The EU and the US are the only two markets that have managed to keep a significant degree of farming protectionism because of sheer size and thus leverage in negotiations.
Kilkrazy wrote: Globalisation is a good thing overall. The problem is that the fruits have not been fairly distributed.
It doesn't happen often, but I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Economists have been saying it for years.
However,who's going to change the system? And if you're at the top, why would you change something that works so well for you?
It's only likely to get worse. We know from the paradise/Panama papers that the rich actively hide and evade paying tax (whilst getting their media lackeys to continually spout the bollocks of trickle down economics) so they won't be much help. Corporate giants are on the rise, robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.
Then of course you have climate change, concerns over antibiotics, and maybe even zombies on the loose.
Tough times are ahead for us, even if we stayed in the EU.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?
What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?
The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.
Supermarkets pay market rates (slightly above actually). Those rates are generally fixed around world prices because there are quotas on how much of X you can bring from abroad.
Big food distro lobbies for higher quotas, farmers lobby for lower quotas.
Britain on its own would devastate British farming in a couple years as long as they open the floodgates of foreign produce.
And yes, Britain would have to open their doors to foreign stuff because otherwise they won't open theirs to British services and high-tech manufacturing.
The EU and the US are the only two markets that have managed to keep a significant degree of farming protectionism because of sheer size and thus leverage in negotiations.
CAP can't continue indefinitely without even some modest reform. Something will have to give somewhere along the line, and I can't see the French government taking on their farmers again. It will be kicked into long grass as always. But the problem won't go away
And ten years ago that was 50%, and it's not because the budget has expanded explosively. The worst excesses are being curbed, with more reform coming.
Kilkrazy wrote: Globalisation is a good thing overall. The problem is that the fruits have not been fairly distributed.
It doesn't happen often, but I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Economists have been saying it for years.
However,who's going to change the system? And if you're at the top, why would you change something that works so well for you?
It's only likely to get worse. We know from the paradise/Panama papers that the rich actively hide and evade paying tax (whilst getting their media lackeys to continually spout the bollocks of trickle down economics) so they won't be much help. Corporate giants are on the rise, robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.
Then of course you have climate change, concerns over antibiotics, and maybe even zombies on the loose.
Tough times are ahead for us, even if we stayed in the EU.
Globalisation would be a good thing if it distributed wealth more evenly but it doesn’t it does the opposite it allows capital to find its cheapest option and exploit it, which it will always do. I do wonder when people talk of wealth distribution from a western perspective do they realise this means they themselves will have less?
Point on anti biotics. I produce chicken which is virtually anti biotic free. The last half million chickens I produced about 30000 will have needed a small dose of anti biotics. They are free range and slow grown. Inside the sheds I put half the number of birds I could put in if they were Tesco willow farm or value ranges. They are expensive to grow but I believe ethically grown and produced. The premium I get does compensate me for the smaller numbers produced. BUT this type of chicken accounts for around 1.5% of the UK market. Most people don’t give a rats ass about anti biotics, welfare or food security. I think though my 1.5% customer base will remain loyal to high quality British produced meat. As farmers we need to educate the other 98.5%!
Here’s me today getting out of the cab just before typing this! Up the farmers!!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And ten years ago that was 50%, and it's not because the budget has expanded explosively. The worst excesses are being curbed, with more reform coming.
And 30 years ago it was >70% CAP spending now is at the same level it was in 1992, but now accounts for many more farmers after the eastwards expansion
In the meantime milk quotas have been abolished entirely (after a long phase out) payments now reward environmental practices instead of overproduction.... It's a long way but it's getting somewhere.
This has been at the expense of many small farmers, and mostly though concentration.... But that's what the XXI century has in store for you, go big (or niche) or go bust.
There are many criticisms to be leveled at the CAP, but please let's not pretend this is still the 80s.
Point on anti biotics. I produce chicken which is virtually anti biotic free.
What will you do if the US starts flooding the UK post-Brexit with chicken treated with massive doses of antibiotics.
Not for coccidiosis or a anything else, but as a growth regulator which results in chickens being something like 10% heavier? Then bleached, which is much cheaper than maintaining proper farm hygiene?
I will do what businesses do. Get better. If people want chlorinated chicken I can do it too. I don’t want to and believe there will always be a market for high quality meat, that’s were I want to be.
The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci! Cocci inhibitors though are used in the UK already maxiban being the most common. It’s not classed as an anti biotic and only has a 24 hour meat withdrawal. Anti biotics used in the states are fed everyday through the feed. Although the strain used is not used for humans so the argument is they cannot cause immunity. In the UK they are only used preventatively, but they are statins shares by humans.... what’s best? I believe in avoidance, I use pro biotics and good water ph to keep the gut right anti biotics are the last last resort. But if the animal is sick, they get it. My beef and lamb rarely get it, but one thing they do get i steroids, common in the states.
The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!
My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)
The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!
My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)
You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!
The tenuous position that the glyphosate industry are in with the EU is putting severe strain on farmers and the agrochemical industry. An independent UK will hopefully be able to inject some reason into the glyphosate argument
Knockagh wrote: I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food.
There's the small issue of not having had sufficient arable land thirty years ago for the UK to support itself. I doubt that the islands will expand in size until they can just to support Brexit.
That and if you expect the British government to make things better, remember that millions starved in Ireland so that the food prices in London didn't rise. To say that the UK has always had a messed up relationship with it's farmers would be an understatement.
Knockagh wrote: I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food.
There's the small issue of not having had sufficient arable land thirty years ago for the UK to support itself. I doubt that the islands will expand in size until they can just to support Brexit.
That and if you expect the British government to make things better, remember that millions starved in Ireland so that the food prices in London didn't rise. To say that the UK has always had a messed up relationship with it's farmers would be an understatement.
I agree. Although I think the relationship with farmers is the same the (first) world over. The split between urban and rural workers (not dwellers) has become a massive cultural gulf. Sadly I have no answer to that but better education. It’s something farmers talk a lot about but are unable to stimulate any interest in return. Countryfile is probably are best advocate! And it does a fine job, but it’s not compulsory viewing.
Maybe if Corbyn gets in he could make it his first decree as dictator of the proletariat.
As for arable land, there are optione in modern grains, ones that should be explored away from the hysteria of the press... but yes we will need soya and others that our climate doesn’t suit, so trade deals will always be necessary.
Knockagh wrote:
Sorry yes easy is probably too flippant a word to use but it will be much easier to negotiate deals from the outside as it’s actually impossible from the inside.
On the inside we help set policy. On the outside we take one of the options given. Unless you mean deals outside the eu? In which case we'll be able to close on deals much quicker, but they'll be poorer deals for us than we could get via the eu.
The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!
My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)
You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!
The cost of registering a new agrochemical active matter runs into the six figures. After that, I can get mutual recognition from other EU countries (usually there are two reporter countries, one in the Southern and one in the Central zone, no one bothers with the Northern zone) for 4-figure cost.
If the UK doesn't have mutual recognition rules for EU-registered agrochemicals we'll need to be spending 5 figures (rough estimate, but that's where it's usually at in 3rd countries) for that to be registered only in the UK. It may make sense for a few choice things, but for sure not most.
The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!
My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)
You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!
The cost of registering a new agrochemical active matter runs into the six figures. After that, I can get mutual recognition from other EU countries (usually there are two reporter countries, one in the Southern and one in the Central zone, no one bothers with the Northern zone) for 4-figure cost.
If the UK doesn't have mutual recognition rules for EU-registered agrochemicals we'll need to be spending 5 figures (rough estimate, but that's where it's usually at in 3rd countries) for that to be registered only in the UK. It may make sense for a few choice things, but for sure not most.
Knockagh wrote: Well I can only speak from my own experience in business. The EU has destroyed farming in the UK. It’s left us working for cost price and reliant on subsidies like beggars to make a wage. The most basic and valuable commodity, food, is produced at cost price. It’s obscene. Our workforce face dangers, harsher working conditions and longer hours than 90% of industry and yet most have to make do on minimum wage.
It’s imposed impossible restrictions that are unworkable. This year alone has seen the slurry ban cause chaos across the UK. The wet summer and autumn means farmers have gone into the winter with slurry storage full to capacity and no legal route to get round it until the spring. It’s an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen and all because of rules made by people in Brussels to suit farmers in drier warmer climates. Farmers are only getting through because local uk authorities are turning a blind eye to spreading but if there is an incident, the farmer will be liable for prosecution. A farmer local to me threw himself off a motorway bridge two years ago after a prosecution for slurry pollution, due to unavoidable weather conditions. We aren’t allowed to spread during dry periods when it’s outside season but can spread when it’s wet and in season.
Our standards are some of he highest within Europe, welfare standards much higher than EU legislation and we must compete with cheaper meats within the EU. Dutch chicken has obscene stocking densities that went out in the UK decades ago, halving their production costs. Their anti biotic usage is massively in excess of ours and yet they can import over us with no restrictions. I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food. That’s why we must take things slowly, think about our future and what we want. A race to the bottom? Or a Slow climb to the top, which will involve hard work and determination, with rough times.
But in the end I believe we couldn’t keep going the way we were.
That's not really practical though because we'd be limited to sprouts and winter cabbage for Christmas dinners, bread would be hard to come by after December, there would be no such thing as strawberries in the winter and so on. It's not just out direct intake as well, it's all the cake/biscuit/fruit pie manufacturers and so on would have to close down for three months of a year.
The ban on slurry has been in the works for years. The problem with spreading slurry is that it isn't stable. It both has a carbon impact to the atmosphere and in heavy rain it washes into watercourses polluting them and there is a lesser known issue of nitrogen pollution of the ground which is slowly degrading land quality. The solution has been for a number of years to invest in Anaerobic digestion facilities for slurry. Not only can be used to create energy but they can also take other materials such as food waste from businesses (and actually helps them be more efficient). The government has known about the issue for a while and originally there were grants or low interest loans (e.g. the green bank) to try and encourage people to invest in these. What you get out of it is a stabilized fertiliser, a stabilised mulch and gas (burnt for energy). There are plenty of farms in our area that have invested in this technology.
Always good to have knowledgeable people on a thread.
Slightly changing the subject. Last night there was a BBC news article about migrants crossing the Alps in the dead of winter to get from to France from Italy. Godonly knows why, but some of them wanted to get to Britain.
They were Sub-Saharan Africans mostly, and they attempted this arduous trek in nothing more than trainers and normal coats.
Sadly, some of them got frostbite and one or two had to get feet amputated when the French mountain rescue got them to the hospital.
But migrants is obviously a problem for the EU and will continue to be a problem with climate change. Why? Water.
Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
Sub-Saharan African is suffering a chronic lack of water, and it will only get worse. The Middle East has this problem too. Forget Jerusalem, the next conflict in that area is likely to be over water. They've already had water wars in the past.
In short, people are likely to head north because of this, and if the last migrant crisis is any judge, the EU won't have their work cut out.
Why do you think I'm hanging around here n North Scotland? Fresh water is every where up here, and could end up being the new oil one day...
As for arable land, there are optione in modern grains, ones that should be explored away from the hysteria of the press... but yes we will need soya and others that our climate doesn’t suit, so trade deals will always be necessary.
The problem with GM isn't what happens to the food itself. Studies have shown that the modified genes tend to get into wild plants because of cross pollination. An insect resistant/repellent gene that got into the wild plant population could be particularly devastating (more so than neonicotinoids). Hence care needs to be taken. It's not the impact on humans that is the problem (the food is perfectly safe), it's the wider potential impacts that haven't been fully explored.
Of the 39 billion we are giving. About 13 billion is going into CAP.
There's a reason for the CAP, because without it free trade deals would mean out own food supplies wouldn't compete. That can have long term unanticipated impacts - for example the plan to increase biofuels in petrol was fine in practice but resulted in increased logging of rainforest just to gtrow grass, as farmers switched to a more profitable crop.
The US subsidies it's farmers, other countries have wages that are pence compared to the EUs. The subsidies actually protect EU farmers being overwhelmed with cheap food because of free trade deals. This is likely to happen to sugar beet farmers vs cane sugar, it might be cheap food but Wrexit will damage the farming industry. The CAP is basically there to allow companies to compete, but not to the extent that you can make a profit from it (think the NIA heating scheme).
My personal view is that goods such be taxed at levels dependent on the social/environmental impacts of the country growing them so that if you pay your countries employees pittance then you are taxed appropriately so that it balances out that we have better standards. It also drives those countries to better standards so they have less duties. Subsidies just maintain the status quo whilst costing money to support those that simply couldn't compete otherwise.
Slightly changing the subject. Last night there was a BBC news article about migrants crossing the Alps in the dead of winter to get from to France from Italy. Godonly knows why, but some of them wanted to get to Britain.
They were Sub-Saharan Africans mostly, and they attempted this arduous trek in nothing more than trainers and normal coats.
Sadly, some of them got frostbite and one or two had to get feet amputated when the French mountain rescue got them to the hospital.
But migrants is obviously a problem for the EU and will continue to be a problem with climate change. Why? Water.
Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.
Sub-Saharan African is suffering a chronic lack of water, and it will only get worse. The Middle East has this problem too. Forget Jerusalem, the next conflict in that area is likely to be over water. They've already had water wars in the past.
In short, people are likely to head north because of this, and if the last migrant crisis is any judge, the EU won't have their work cut out.
Why do you think I'm hanging around here n North Scotland? Fresh water is every where up here, and could end up being the new oil one day...
But Migrants are only here because evil reasons.
Nigel Farage said so. So did Gove and Johnson. And it’s not like they’ve ever lied to anyone ever.
Brillant to see so many thinking seriously about solutions to our food and agri industries. The ideas being floated, including my own, have been knocked around for decades now. Its important at this time we get national consensus on this. The media often sensationalise farming and food using bad science frankly nonsense. (Daily Mail thats you) solutions aren’t easy but we can make this better.
Migrant crisis continues to be a tragedy. We need to get better at helping people in their country of origin if we are ever to get long term solutions.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The current Tory brand of capitalism has solely benefited those lucky enough to jump on the gravy train when it first pulled away.
The Tories aren't capitalists. They're corporatists. They care only about their own nice little earners and those of their mates, families and donors. They care nothing for the hairdresser, corner shop owner, white van man etc, except when it incidentally aligns with their corporate interests. There's a tremendous difference between true capitalism and what the tories are right now.
As I’ve repeatedly said, privatisation has utterly failed. Rail costs rising above wages. Electric, Gas and Water Companies charging ‘think of a number’ prices. Hell, in my local area, the council wants to cut funding to public transport, whilst granting themselves a 15% pay rise?
Until the Chinese started dumping steel onto the international market the UK steel industry was producing more steel than it ever had before, and was doing so at a fraction of the historical cost, due to privatisation. When properly exposed to free market forces, privatisation performs immensely better than nationalised industries. Rail suffers because a) it's not exposed to proper market forces due to government subsidy, b) because the franchises are utterly reliant on a separate organisation to fix their tracks for them (a government owned body that is generally recognised as the worst performing part of the rail system), and c) because their franchise agreements force them into running trains and stations that have long ceased to be profitable. There's also the elephant in the room that rail is a somewhat outdated mode of transport for all but some very specific journey requirements, a good portion of which are for the benefit of people working well paid jobs in London. There's a substantial body of evidence to suggest that rail fares should be significantly more expensive, with the cost borne by the people that benefit the most from it rather than requiring the public to subsidise it.
We’ve got a completely clueless government in bed with some truly worrying types - worrying types they had to bribe with money we’d just been told doesn’t actually exist - except when the Tories need to pull their balls from the fire. We’ve got a Health Service on its knees and being quietly privatised.
And the scary thing about all of that is that it's small fry compared to the damage comrade Corbyn would let loose on the economy. If you think the generation coming to adulthood now have it bad, spare a thought for what their kids will have to endure if Corbyn and McDonnell gets anywhere the treasury.
Whirlwind wrote: Neo-liberalism can arguably be stated as the causes for such disasters as Grenfell (indirectly) as the state has allowed the watering down of legislation and allowing the controls to be decided by businesses which took the 'lowest reasonable cost' option.
The legislation is actually pretty tight (tighter than the EU requires I believe). It was the local government who approved the use of cladding that didn't meet the standard required in order to save themselves cash (tory council I think). So much for the benefits of state protection...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.
Maybe I'm not following the thread properly, as such forgive me if I've misread this, but are you not in this case advocating for someone else to have to work on a low salary, combined with subsidies provided by the rest of the taxpayers, just so that farmers can have a comfortable income? That seems a little odd to me. One of the reasons there are so few British people working in agriculture is partly because the jobs are seldom advertised over here (recruiters looking directly overseas for the cheap labour), but in large part because farms don't pay an atractive wage for what is required.
Kilkrazy wrote:I also don't see why we think we will be better at negotiating deals than the EU already is... As for standards, the way to deal with that is to be a member of the EU
Generally smaller countries have an easier time negotiating deals because they have less vested interests snapping at their heels at every turn. It takes the US and the EU such a long time to get deals done because they're effectively negotiating for an entire continents worth of economic factors. The UK on its own doesn't really care much about needing to protect orange growers or olive farms. The EU/US does. The key for Britain is to focus on a very narrow range of interests.
Knockagh wrote: and hopefully a more protectionist market within the UK will develop.
A more protectionist market is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. Escaping the protectionism of the EU is one of the major advantages of Brexit in the long run.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:.. robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.
Robots, automation and AI (of sorts) have been prevelant in our economy for decades. I'm surprised how often people forget this. Their presence is usually associated with significant productivity gains that help to make industries perform much better both domestically and on the international market.
Also, apologys if I've mis-attributed quotes amongst all that, was dealing with multi-quotes and quotes within quotes. Let me know if I need to change any attribution.
Kids not having to pay for university. Employees receiving at lead the same favour as their employers. A properly funded NHS. THE LIKES OF VODAFONE NOT SIMPLY LET OFF MULTI BILLION POUND TAX BILLS WILL THIS MADNESS NEVER END?????
Seriously. This is the real world calling. Ain’t nobody saying Corbyn’s plans will be free. Just an awful lot of people sick to the back teeth of having to carry the can for the lucky and the wealthy to give *them* low taxes, whils they continue to take the piss.
Bouncing Boredom. I sense a rare breed these days, a classical liberal. Your right the tories have abandoned their roots for corporate promises.
But I can’t agree with it because I don’t think things are that simple, but it’s hard to argue against in its simplicity.
By the way I employ Eastern European workers as I can’t get locals to do farm work. I live on the edge of a city and no one likes getting cold or dirty. The guys I have are just like me they thrive in the muck! They don’t get minimum wage they get £9/hr and I wish I could give more. I don’t live like a king, I do alright but I put out a substantial tonnage of product each year of high quality food and I work at times of the year up to 100 hour weeks. I get one holiday a year and that is often cut short having to come home because the weather has changed. My workers do 3 days on 4 days off on a cycle. They get sick pay, I don’t.
If your theory was correct locals would queue up to work here but they don’t, why? Because culture/life and all in between doesn’t follow Adam Smiths theories.
Kids not having to pay for university. Employees receiving at lead the same favour as their employers. A properly funded NHS. THE LIKES OF VODAFONE NOT SIMPLY LET OFF MULTI BILLION POUND TAX BILLS WILL THIS MADNESS NEVER END?????
Seriously. This is the real world calling. Ain’t nobody saying Corbyn’s plans will be free. Just an awful lot of people sick to the back teeth of having to carry the can for the lucky and the wealthy to give *them* low taxes, whils they continue to take the piss.
Where do you think the money for the kids education is going to come from? Taxation possibly, more likely borrowing, which is just taxation brought forward. Who will pay the bulk of this taxation? University graduates who earn higher incomes...
Besides, why shouldn't kids pay for their university education? It's an investment in themselves, the chance to get a job on much higher earnings than is typical for those without a degree. They absolutely should have to pay for their own degrees. Otherwise you're effectively asking your local binman to pay more tax just so someone else can go out and get a better job than him. That's not a progressive society, especially not when higher educational attainment at the pre-university level is strongly correlated with parental income (their education being the driving factor). That taken into consideration, you're than effectively asking the working class to pay more tax so kids from middle income families can get a free degree while the opportunities for the working class kids remain limited still. Again, not progressive.
I'm also guessing you've never employed someone. Employees have quite an array of rights. Once you're in the door, it's very hard for an employer to remove you unless you do something to warrant being removed.
The NHS? You understand that Corbyn's vision for the NHS is the same as Blair and Brown's; pump money into higher salaries (medical unions are pretty big, nurses union is huge, unions vote for - and pay into - Labour party), with little actual improved end product out the other end (because underpaid staff has virtually nothing to do with the problems facing the NHS).
As for Vodafone, what makes you think Corbyn will be any better at pinning them down then any previous government, blue or red? Every government comes to power promising to make companies pay more tax, then inevitably fails to do so, mainly because it's like trying to find an honest politician i.e. virtually impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Strangely it is the EU, dominated by nations with social democratic governments, that has been closing in on the off-shore tax havens.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the EU, is most famous for his prior role as the Prime Minister of Luxembourg where he was instrumental in developing and continuing its status as a tax haven. He's one of the most corporate brown nosing politicians in all of Europe, as indeed are many in the EU. It's very difficult to find a single politician in any country who is truly opposed to tax havens, because most of them are using them themselves.
Knockagh wrote:Bouncing Boredom. I sense a rare breed these days, a classical liberal. Your right the tories have abandoned their roots for corporate promises.
But I can’t agree with it because I don’t think things are that simple, but it’s hard to argue against in its simplicity.
By the way I employ Eastern European workers as I can’t get locals to do farm work. I live on the edge of a city and no one likes getting cold or dirty. The guys I have are just like me they thrive in the muck! They don’t get minimum wage they get £9/hr and I wish I could give more. I don’t live like a king, I do alright but I put out a substantial tonnage of product each year of high quality food and I work at times of the year up to 100 hour weeks. I get one holiday a year and that is often cut short having to come home because the weather has changed. My workers do 3 days on 4 days off on a cycle. They get sick pay, I don’t.
If your theory was correct locals would queue up to work here but they don’t, why? Because culture/life and all in between doesn’t follow Adam Smiths theories.
I'm something of a classical liberal. I have to confess I don't slot into many of the economic groups easily because I tend to favour a bit from here and a bit from there, but CL would probably be the closest (and a lonely spot it is frequently )
I have to say, it's virtually impossible to find an agricultural job advertised. There's been a lot of investigative reports into the agencies that hire such workers and most of them go straight abroad, not least because they then fleece the poor souls with all manner of "finders deductions" etc until they reach the point that a lot of them are under the minimum wage. I would argue the counter to the "Brits don't like hard work" angle is that there are lots of Brits who work on building sites in all weathers, doing hard, physical labour. They have options though. They can work in a nice warm Tesco for minimum wage. They can get all manner of jobs that are fairly cushty for a bit more than that. Many eastern european workers lack such alternate avenues. It's Adam Smiths theory working exactly as predicted.
you....you are aware that during austerity the Tories have borrowed more than every other government put together, yeah? For absolutely no national benefit, yeah? I mean, sure you can prove anything with facts???
Why should University be free? Social mobility. No child can help the family it’s born into. It’s simply not a choice. Let’s reward ability, not wealth.
If youngsters can go to Uni and get suitably qualified, there’s. National financial benefit right there. Less need to import skills, yeah? I mean, the right wing are always crying about migration...shame it’s currently necessary. Imagine if someone as hard pressed and poorly paid as a Nurse or Junior Doctor could qualify without a crippling debt higher than most of their parent’s mortgage?
It’s not about equality of outcome, just equality of opportunity. Or do you really, genuinely, sincerely believe the kid of your hypothetical binman should be put off achieving their full potential by the threat of ridiculous debt before they’ve actually live as an adult in real world!
And it’s not just funding University - it’s properly funding the state school system so there’s basically no difference beyond sheer snobbery twixt that and the private school system.
Why should employees be easy to fire? Why don’t they deserve protection? I consider myself incredibly privileged to not only have an excellent, nigh unthreatenanle career despite having the merest clutch of GCSE’s and a lot of life experience, but to know my bosses can’t simply make up a reason to sack me because. I’ve also worked for far, far too many arseholes. The sort to pay me the minimum wage whilst my efforts raked in thousands for them each and ever week? Do you see why I may well bear a grudge here! I have no issue with the Boss folk getting the cream - after all, without them I’d be earning nowt. But when they pay me the bare minimum whilst I bust a nut, week in, week out, doing a job that’s break them within a Month!
As for Corbyn’s vision of the NHS? Blair and Brown’s take was to employ ever greater levels of management. That’s where the money went. There’s a bs thought process that ‘to get the best, you have to pay the most’...utter bollocks. If you want to work in a naturalised industry, you’ve got to be willing to trade top dollar for the promise of not only increased job security, but also Doing The Right Thing. Not willing? Well, the private sector is right over there, go on. Let’s see how long you actually last with your piss poor work ethic.
Vodafone! Labour just needs to do the apparently unthinkable. Not only rip up and re-write the tax laws, but do so without consulting private tax companies because they’ve got this unsettling tendency to ensure there’s loophole that are there because they made sure they were?
Worst case scenario! All those companies refusing to pay their tax in the UK will feth off and not pay their tax somewhere else....
I didn’t mean to imply Brits don’t like hard work at all. Farm work is more a cultural thing I believe you need to be brought up around animals. I believe, in general, we are an exceptionally hard working nation that is far to hard on itself. I think we have lost our way and have fallen into overly Bureaucratic mess one that’s been compounded by the EU.
I genuinely believe in the UK and all it’s constituent people. I think we can have a bright future together if we can clear enough space in the mess to find a way forward. And I think we are starting on that road. I love our democracy and system of government, warts and all, and yes there are many. But I love it all, so that makes me first and foremost a unionist. love our islands and think we have great people here across all our nations.
Whirlwind wrote: Neo-liberalism can arguably be stated as the causes for such disasters as Grenfell (indirectly) as the state has allowed the watering down of legislation and allowing the controls to be decided by businesses which took the 'lowest reasonable cost' option.
The legislation is actually pretty tight (tighter than the EU requires I believe). It was the local government who approved the use of cladding that didn't meet the standard required in order to save themselves cash (tory council I think). So much for the benefits of state protection...
That's not really correct. In some areas legislation is tighter (for example import of animals) but they are generally for specific reasons (to keep the Country rabies free, apart from a few Tory backbenchers and current government we have managed to keep ourselves free of slavering lunatic animals). On the other hand in some areas we do the bare minimum to meet EU standards (e.g. some environmental legislation) and in some areas we've opted out (e.g. working time Directive). I'm not sure there is a full list of what we are 'better' at than the EU. For example in the case of Grenfell you are wrong. If we followed EU guidance then the cladding wouldn't have been used because it doesn't meet EU standards.
Our guidance basically limits how flammable materials can be but doesn't prescribe how to undertake those tests or ban materials outright. Hence it is left to industry to determine what is appropriate and reasonable. The were warnings before on this but the government delayed updating the rules.
It is also unreasonable to blame local councils. They have to procure services and have to decide in that procurement what standards to meet. However you cannot expect a procurement manager to know whether government guidance is suitable or not. That is not their expertise. As such the procurements will state that "they must meet the generals standards set out in X". If the bidding companies provide evidence that they meet those standards then I am not exactly sure what you are expecting them to do. They haven't decided to allow proposals that breach UK rules, quite the opposite, but they can't be expected to know the in's and outs of whether there are weaknesses in the tests. That is why we have standards so everyone doesn't have to be an expert in everything.
Kilkrazy wrote: After Brexit we will have to comply with all the EU regulation, plus our own, plus the regulation of every country with which we co a trade deal.
It will be interesting to see if this is less regulation that EU regulation alone.
For the majority of manufacturers that means complying with the most stringent. There are few companies big enough that can run different lines simply to make the most of different rules. Games Workshop aren't going to manufacturer resin miniatures with different amounts of chemical X in them they will just work to what they have to and still allow them to export (unless they want to leave the market completely, which may be the solution if the market in that country is small and the benefit from complying does not outweigh the costs of implementing it).
Will there be less regulation involved in determining which of all the different regulations is the most stringent, and ensuring that all the others are able to comply, or just using the one single regulation?
bouncingboredom wrote: They absolutely should have to pay for their own degrees. Otherwise you're effectively asking your local binman to pay more tax just so someone else can go out and get a better job than him.
Yep. And he should be glad to do so. Because the society he lives in needs well educated people both for functional reasons - we need doctors, engineers, teachers - and for cultural reasons - a well educated society is a more fulfilling one to be a part of.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: you....you are aware that during austerity the Tories have borrowed more than every other government put together, yeah? For absolutely no national benefit, yeah? I mean, sure you can prove anything with facts???
Why should University be free? Social mobility. No child can help the family it’s born into. It’s simply not a choice. Let’s reward ability, not wealth.
If youngsters can go to Uni and get suitably qualified, there’s. National financial benefit right there. Less need to import skills, yeah? I mean, the right wing are always crying about migration...shame it’s currently necessary. Imagine if someone as hard pressed and poorly paid as a Nurse or Junior Doctor could qualify without a crippling debt higher than most of their parent’s mortgage?
It’s not about equality of outcome, just equality of opportunity. Or do you really, genuinely, sincerely believe the kid of your hypothetical binman should be put off achieving their full potential by the threat of ridiculous debt before they’ve actually live as an adult in real world!
And it’s not just funding University - it’s properly funding the state school system so there’s basically no difference beyond sheer snobbery twixt that and the private school system.
Why should employees be easy to fire? Why don’t they deserve protection? I consider myself incredibly privileged to not only have an excellent, nigh unthreatenanle career despite having the merest clutch of GCSE’s and a lot of life experience, but to know my bosses can’t simply make up a reason to sack me because. I’ve also worked for far, far too many arseholes. The sort to pay me the minimum wage whilst my efforts raked in thousands for them each and ever week? Do you see why I may well bear a grudge here! I have no issue with the Boss folk getting the cream - after all, without them I’d be earning nowt. But when they pay me the bare minimum whilst I bust a nut, week in, week out, doing a job that’s break them within a Month!
As for Corbyn’s vision of the NHS? Blair and Brown’s take was to employ ever greater levels of management. That’s where the money went. There’s a bs thought process that ‘to get the best, you have to pay the most’...utter bollocks. If you want to work in a naturalised industry, you’ve got to be willing to trade top dollar for the promise of not only increased job security, but also Doing The Right Thing. Not willing? Well, the private sector is right over there, go on. Let’s see how long you actually last with your piss poor work ethic.
Vodafone! Labour just needs to do the apparently unthinkable. Not only rip up and re-write the tax laws, but do so without consulting private tax companies because they’ve got this unsettling tendency to ensure there’s loophole that are there because they made sure they were?
Worst case scenario! All those companies refusing to pay their tax in the UK will feth off and not pay their tax somewhere else....
You understand that when they came into government the national deficit was running at something like £90 billion, a massive portion of which was the interest payments on the prior debt accrued by Labour? They gradually began to to cut it down by what you and they call "austerity", but which was nothing of the sort. Even now the deficit is still in the region of £40-50 billion per year, and most of that is still paying off the old debts. I'm not a fan of the tories, but you can't really pin the inherited debt on them, as much as Labour is trying to. They could have done a lot more to bring it down, but even the little they did do was met with all manner of whining and crying about "austerity". It didn't help that rather than take some of the easier options they decided to go after disabled people for example, which is on their own heads.
If you're concerned about social mobility then you'll be pleased to know that since the introduction of higher tuition fees more people from poor backgrounds than ever before are going to university, largely because they're still able to access grants. Free university education has been proven to benefit the wealthiest more than the poorest, because the wealthiest are significantly more likely to be able to qualify educationally to take advantage of it. As such all it tends to do is widen the gap between the poor and the rich, especially as everyones taxes go up and the poorest are less able to bare the increased burden.
Migration should bee seen as a positive, not a negative, especially at the higher end (if you're using a Canada style points system then people who accrue above a certain number of points should ideally be granted automatic entry, with no maximum quotas). My current dentist is a lovely Nigerian lady who's several fold a better dentist than the previous English fella I had. People like her should not be shunned just because she's not born here. Also worth noting that Nurses and Doctors are not poorly paid by any reasonable economic measure. You could argue that morally they should earn more, or that their job is "worth" more, but by conventional pay standards they start on decent money and can rise to very, very good money.
I should imagine that the child of our hypothetical binman would welcome the opportunity to do a degree, potentially earn a lot more than his father, and pay it back in installments gladly as money well spent having reached a much higher level of income than his father. I know I would.
As for your job, perhaps you should seek an alternative if you're not happy? Or if wasn't such a ridiculous series of hoops to jump through, start your own business and become the boss? At which point you'd get to experience the delights of employing someone only to find out once their trial period is up that they're actually a lazy/incompetent who you now can't just bin on the spot because of the protections afforded to them. I'm not saying it's easy to find the balance between bad bosses and bad employees, but you'll have difficulty at this point in time convincing anyone who's a boss in any capacity that workers are unprotected.
I also think your view of the NHS is quite naive. There are lots of nurses and doctors who have switched either private, or double up on their own jobs by working for an agency, to the extent that some of them will clock off their job and then clock straight back on again, except now they're on agency time which is better paying. Not particularly altruistic and a big portion of the NHS's current salary woes. Blair and Brown were a veritable disaster for the NHS with their combination of gold plated salary handouts, ridiculous targets and the extensive use of PFI to hide government debt from the government books, palming it off onto the trusts balance sheet (and you thought the Tories were big on NHS privatisation... oh boy, just take a look back for a moment). Corbyn and McDonnell are shaping up to be much the same.
And you could rip up the tax laws, except it's not that easy. If it was super easy, someone would have done it by now, because the only thing governments like more than making money for themselves and their friends is to take other peoples money and spend it to make themselves look good. You don't think the tories would have jumped at the chance if it was super easy to just tax Google etc to pay down the deficit? Companies are very clever and they have lots of very clever people on speed dial. Even the tightest looking tax law would inevitably just hit small and medium companies the hardest, while the top companies used further loopholes (there's always loopholes) to dodge most of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Knockagh wrote:I didn’t mean to imply Brits don’t like hard work at all. Farm work is more a cultural thing I believe you need to be brought up around animals. I believe, in general, we are an exceptionally hard working nation that is far to hard on itself. I think we have lost our way and have fallen into overly Bureaucratic mess one that’s been compounded by the EU.
I genuinely believe in the UK and all it’s constituent people. I think we can have a bright future together if we can clear enough space in the mess to find a way forward. And I think we are starting on that road. I love our democracy and system of government, warts and all, and yes there are many. But I love it all, so that makes me first and foremost a unionist. love our islands and think we have great people here across all our nations.
I agree it's something of a niche. It either interests you or it doesn't I suspect. But just by illustration I did a quick search for agricultural jobs, just a very basic one, and all bar one of the vacancies were for things like sales manager for x dairy etc. Only one job was an actual labouring one, and in the requirements it had "1 year of farmwork and 1 year of welding" (there's some machine repair involved). The salary offered is less than what just a competent welder alone could make in a year, let alone someone who also had additional experience. I do wonder if sometimes the agricultural sector shoots itself in the foot.
I also agree we have a bright future ahead as a nation, if we could just get rid of these blue and red lots in charge and find something a bit more... classically liberal
Whirlwind wrote:Our guidance basically limits how flammable materials can be but doesn't prescribe how to undertake those tests or ban materials outright. Hence it is left to industry to determine what is appropriate and reasonable. The were warnings before on this but the government delayed updating the rules.
It is also unreasonable to blame local councils. They have to procure services and have to decide in that procurement what standards to meet. However you cannot expect a procurement manager to know whether government guidance is suitable or not. That is not their expertise. As such the procurements will state that "they must meet the generals standards set out in X". If the bidding companies provide evidence that they meet those standards then I am not exactly sure what you are expecting them to do. They haven't decided to allow proposals that breach UK rules, quite the opposite, but they can't be expected to know the in's and outs of whether there are weaknesses in the tests. That is why we have standards so everyone doesn't have to be an expert in everything.
We have to be a little bit careful about what we say as this is part of an ongoing investigation. Suffice to say that there is a British standard for cladding in this use and the cladding in question did not meet that standard. It is alleged that the council knew this was this case but proceeded anyway in order to save money.
Kilkrazy wrote:After Brexit we will have to comply with all the EU regulation, plus our own, plus the regulation of every country with which we co a trade deal.
It will be interesting to see if this is less regulation that EU regulation alone.
Companies will only be required to meet the regulations that apply to them, i.e. very few businesses actually export goods and will have no need to meet EU standards, or anyone's but our own. Most regulation now is gradually shifted towards the international level, which is far more important than the EU and where the UK should focus post-brexit. Someone else also made the point that generally you'll work to the highest standard required, because that normally covers everyone. Also worth noting a quite significant number of producers outside the EU refuse to meet onerous EU standards and instead focus on other markets, which is precisely how the EU likes it.
nfe wrote:Yep. And he should be glad to do so. Because the society he lives in needs well educated people both for functional reasons - we need doctors, engineers, teachers - and for cultural reasons - a well educated society is a more fulfilling one to be a part of.
Well educated people can still become doctors, engineers etc. They can more than afford to pay for it themselves by bringing forward their future salary in the form of a loan to pay for their own education, leaving the binman to go about his business without having to pay additional taxes to fund their advancement. We can get doctors, engineers and teachers from other countries if needs be, the binman does not specifically require Johnny luckygenes to become a doctor.
nfe wrote:Yep. And he should be glad to do so. Because the society he lives in needs well educated people both for functional reasons - we need doctors, engineers, teachers - and for cultural reasons - a well educated society is a more fulfilling one to be a part of.
Well educated people can still become doctors, engineers etc. They can more than afford to pay for it themselves by bringing forward their future salary in the form of a loan to pay for their own education, leaving the binman to go about his business without having to pay additional taxes to fund their advancement.
Not all graduates get well paid jobs. University is not for getting jobs. It is for getting educated.
We can get doctors, engineers and teachers from other countries if needs be
We should probably just chuck all research funding then too, I guess. Someone at Harvard will get round to everything eventually.
nfe wrote: Not all graduates get well paid jobs. University is not for getting jobs. It is for getting educated.
So now you want the binman to pay for Johnny Luckygenes to go and spend 3 years studying the history of art? Or darts? What a productive use of that binman's tax money. I'll bet he's delighted to have nobly sacrificed some of his families income so a portion of the student body can go on a three year bender with little to show for it at the other end. University is primarily about acquiring specific knowledge in a specialist area, which in turn allows you to command a greater salary/fee due to the relatively rarity of your knowledge.
We should probably just chuck all research funding then too, I guess. Someone at Harvard will get round to everything eventually.
Ah yes Harvard, an institution that commands exorbitant fees in exchange for the chance at a first class eductation, while using the fees to fund first class research and using the endownment from their spin offs to fund free education for gifted but financially challenged students.
See, you're getting this classical economics thing
I honestly can't understand the justification for charging for uni in England. Lots never pay it back so the taxpayer picks up the tab after 30 years admin. Some of them pay tax anyway. Those that do pay it back earn enough to pay tax. So why not just cut out all the admin crap and pay it from tax directly?
You can still charge for foreigners and additional courses. That's what we do up here and it seems to work fine.
I've talked about this about a half dozen times but long story short.
They don't really "pick up the tab" - it's just written off after 30 years. It is essentially a tax but it wasn't politically suitable to call it a tax, because the T word freaks people out.
nfe wrote: Not all graduates get well paid jobs. University is not for getting jobs. It is for getting educated.
So now you want the binman to pay for Johnny Luckygenes to go and spend 3 years studying the history of art? Or darts? What a productive use of that binman's tax money. I'll bet he's delighted to have nobly sacrificed some of his families income so a portion of the student body can go on a three year bender with little to show for it at the other end. University is primarily about acquiring specific knowledge in a specialist area, which in turn allows you to command a greater salary/fee due to the relatively rarity of your knowledge.
You have a point though. I spent four years getting my degree and have a pretty decent job, but my time in uni did sour me to an extent in terms of what it achieves. I feel it can be a bit of a con. I did not feel like the end product of a system of education. I felt like the resource, mined for four years for my damned college fees. I felt like a cog in a machine. Whose only purpose was To generate funding for pointless phDs. And I know enough about PhDs in science to know a lot of them fall down because of luck, rubbish supervisors and terrible faculty members in charge.
For all the good times I had in uni, I came out of it thinking uni isn't for everyone. In ways, it feels like a status symbol, especially for the parents - 'my so and so is off to uni studying such and such'. I felt that a lot of what was taught in uni could actually be taught other ways as well. Maybe it was me being somewhat soured on my experiences, but I have a lot of time for the trade/apprenticeship/'actual time served working in the real world' approach towards learning job skills. And while ITs (institutes of technologies) generally favoured a more hands on approach, I still felt there was too much focus on theory that was often to me, more than a bit pointless. I suppise it could be different in other courses to mind though, so I'll happily keep an opencast mind on it. I do also think there are plenty things taught in unis just for the sake of it, which are a bit pointless whose value is somewhat questionable. But this just my own personal POV
I suppose the tl;dr for me is that for all the status of unis, I think there are better ways of people learning jobcraft, and that going to uni shouldn't necessarily be held up as some kind of end goal. And like I said, I did uni, and I know plenty folks who didn't, and are actually doing quite a bit better than me.
I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.
Even ones with seemingly obvious uses, like Computer Repair and Servicing, do not always segue into solid employment. Sometimes the skills you pick up outside school (sometimes, way outside school) are much better.
I like the sound of three days on four days off but I imagine it's very hard work.
It's good to hear a farmer's perspective on these things. I'd also like to hear what the fishing industry thinks too.
Are you a fellow northerner?
I confess I know very little about the fishing industry at all. They have been heavily critical of the EU and certainly have declined as an industry during the UKs membership. It’s another industry that has experienced a huge cultural disconnect with mainstream society.
I confess I know very little about the fishing industry at all. They have been heavily critical of the EU and certainly have declined as an industry during the UKs membership. It’s another industry that has experienced a huge cultural disconnect with mainstream society.
Yes I am! From Belfast itself.
And members of the fishing industry had to deal with aul Bob Geldoff giving them the finger from his luxury yacht. That was an extra kick in the teeth.
bouncingboredom wrote: They absolutely should have to pay for their own degrees. Otherwise you're effectively asking your local binman to pay more tax just so someone else can go out and get a better job than him.
Yep. And he should be glad to do so. Because the society he lives in needs well educated people both for functional reasons - we need doctors, engineers, teachers - and for cultural reasons - a well educated society is a more fulfilling one to be a part of.
And if people high degrees get better jobs they also end up paying more taxes which in turn support the rest of economy. Cheap/free degrees just make it easier for people to choose freely instead of having to consider their financial circumstances the moment they become an adult. And that also protects them from whatever happens economically in the next few years while they are getting their degree. Imagine getting an expensive degree and finally leaving college right after the 2008 recession. You might end up fethed no matter how "in demand" your very expensive degree was about half a decade ago when you made your choice and had no idea you would graduate into that shitstorm.
I confess I know very little about the fishing industry at all. They have been heavily critical of the EU and certainly have declined as an industry during the UKs membership. It’s another industry that has experienced a huge cultural disconnect with mainstream society.
Yes I am! From Belfast itself.
And members of the fishing industry had to deal with aul Bob Geldoff giving them the finger from his luxury yacht. That was an extra kick in the teeth.
Nice one! We do get around, always suprised at where I meet fellow Norn Iron folk!
I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.
Should have gone to Harvard I'll never forget the binmen (and bin lady) that gave me a lift home once at about 5am while I was incredibly drunk. Absolute legends to a man (and a woman).
Herzlos wrote:I honestly can't understand the justification for charging for uni in England. Lots never pay it back so the taxpayer picks up the tab after 30 years admin. Some of them pay tax anyway. Those that do pay it back earn enough to pay tax. So why not just cut out all the admin crap and pay it from tax directly?
If done properly the students would be forced to take out a personal loan, with no government support. It would be down to the individuals (and likely their parents) to shop around and get the best deal, for example if the parents put down a deposit/security asset. The government could play a role by providing a limited number of grants for poorer students. Like all free market systems, this would heavily put the emphasis on the individual who's receving the most benefit to take personal responsibility for themselves (they're paying for it, they better knuckle down and get the best result they can. Likely they would attract a cheaper rate for having higher GCSE results etc).
Deadnight wrote:
You have a point though. I spent four years getting my degree and have a pretty decent job, but my time in uni did sour me to an extent in terms of what it achieves. I feel it can be a bit of a con. I did not feel like the end product of a system of education. I felt like the resource, mined for four years for my damned college fees. I felt like a cog in a machine. Whose only purpose was To generate funding for pointless phDs. And I know enough about PhDs in science to know a lot of them fall down because of luck, rubbish supervisors and terrible faculty members in charge.
For all the good times I had in uni, I came out of it thinking uni isn't for everyone. In ways, it feels like a status symbol, especially for the parents - 'my so and so is off to uni studying such and such'. I felt that a lot of what was taught in uni could actually be taught other ways as well. Maybe it was me being somewhat soured on my experiences, but I have a lot of time for the trade/apprenticeship/'actual time served working in the real world' approach towards learning job skills. And while ITs (institutes of technologies) generally favoured a more hands on approach, I still felt there was too much focus on theory that was often to me, more than a bit pointless. I suppise it could be different in other courses to mind though, so I'll happily keep an opencast mind on it. I do also think there are plenty things taught in unis just for the sake of it, which are a bit pointless whose value is somewhat questionable. But this just my own personal POV
I suppose the tl;dr for me is that for all the status of unis, I think there are better ways of people learning jobcraft, and that going to uni shouldn't necessarily be held up as some kind of end goal. And like I said, I did uni, and I know plenty folks who didn't, and are actually doing quite a bit better than me.
Lots of layers there; much, much to agree with.
University is not for everyone. You've hit the nail on the head in that it's almost become a status symbol now. There are graduate opportunities here in the UK, normally involving fast track to management in things like retail, where the only requirement to get onto the selection process is to have a degree. Doesn't matter what it is, just an assumption that someone with a degree will make a decent manager. Being a graduate in some capacity has literally become an end in and of itself. I suspect a number of people who are pushed into university life would do much better on a shorter technical course that was more immediately useful to them and was better suited to their learning objectives. This in turn would be one of the selling points of universities - the Harvard effect shall we say - where universities stand out from the crowd not just for their price, but also for the end results they produce.
There's no reason that uni's themselves couldn't offer a multitude of courses aside from just university degrees, such as offering night courses and the like to locals (nice little side earner which could keep admissions costs down). It's also a reality of university finance that many humanities courses (requiring mainly just a classroom and a tutor) are used to cover the cost of more expensive "practical" courses. Uncapped fees and students paying their own way would offer some institutions the option of offering lower cost degrees because they wouldn't be subsidising experiments with lasers and supercomputers. And if companies really feel there is a skills shortage in trades like engineering (which many do), then perhaps it's time for them to stop belly aching and actually do something about it. They have equipment, they have skilled personnel, and they have money. They could help the universities provide the courses, either through funding, subsidising specific individuals courses, offering up their people and facilities etc for practical learning.
BaronIveagh wrote:I confess I know very little about the fishing industry at all. They have been heavily critical of the EU and certainly have declined as an industry during the UKs membership. It’s another industry that has experienced a huge cultural disconnect with mainstream society.
Their industry has been decimated over the years. I live about 200 yards from the sea and we have one local fisherman left now, meanwhile there's a dutch trawler out there that owns decent chunk of UK fishing quotas and it takes them all back to Holland with it. Our waters have been chronically overfished and most of the value of that disappears to overseas boats. If correctly managed we could make big strides after brexit in recovering the fish population and giving the fishermen a little boost.
Mario wrote:And if people high degrees get better jobs they also end up paying more taxes which in turn support the rest of economy. Cheap/free degrees just make it easier for people to choose freely instead of having to consider their financial circumstances the moment they become an adult. And that also protects them from whatever happens economically in the next few years while they are getting their degree. Imagine getting an expensive degree and finally leaving college right after the 2008 recession. You might end up fethed no matter how "in demand" your very expensive degree was about half a decade ago when you made your choice and had no idea you would graduate into that shitstorm.
Or they could pay for their own degree, get the better job, and still pay their taxes like everyone else does. The risk/reward element of getting the degree is an inherent part of the calculation. It would likely mean less people with degrees, which would make those with them more valuable. It's also likely to mean that people seek out degrees that are more "employable" instead of the current top trending degrees in the UK which include the likes of psychology degrees and criminal pathology, neither of which is in particularly high demand but make up an oddly big chunk of all new graduate admissions.
The problem with the argument of the binman paying for education is that he doesn't. His taxes are a drop in the bucket. The ones raking in millions a year? It's the taxes on them that pays for education of the binman's kid. That's how it really works, which is why the wealthy are so desperate to get away from that. And when the wealthy are screwing over everyone else to benefit themselves, crashing the economy for everyone seems like a reasonable chance to take because most of everyone already lives there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You can’t negotiate a better hand if your would be negotiating partner is the one with the better hand.
Slow may be the better idea. But the whole thing remains a daft decision.
In what world are we going to come out well of any trade negotiations? What exactly is our best hand? What precisely is it that we have that other nations and unions want that they can’t get from somewhere else and in greater quantity?
Blind optimism just isn’t going to cut it. Whether disastrously so or not, we’re the ones to get the poopy end of the Stick.
We’ll be negotiating with the EU to start, yes? And when they get us right over the barrel, do you think any other prospective trade partners are gonna seek anything less?
You have rainy weather with week long non-stop rains Try to figure it to your advantage! Somehow...
nfe wrote: Not all graduates get well paid jobs. University is not for getting jobs. It is for getting educated.
So now you want the binman to pay for Johnny Luckygenes to go and spend 3 years studying the history of art? Or darts? What a productive use of that binman's tax money
Yep. I'll cheerfully pay an extra £20 a month for anyone to study anything. I earn less that binmen. Additionally, a tiered system that makes value judgements about the worthiness of research fields is not helpful. People are excited about interdisciplinary research projects for a reason. All research has merit and frequent contributions are made across fields. Currently there's a lot of cross pollination between urban developmers, environmental scientists, human geographers, and archaeologists, for example.
I'll bet he's delighted to have nobly sacrificed some of his families income so a portion of the student body can go on a three year bender with little to show for it at the other end.
According to your arbitrary criteria.
University is primarily about acquiring specific knowledge in a specialist area,
Not at undergrad it isn't. It's about getting a vague background in a subject whilst learning how to conduct analysis and research in a given field. Some people get more than that, of course, but that's what's in it for the majority, and that's its purpose as conceived by nigh-on everyone teaching in anything but the most vocational courses - which frequently fail to get people jobs anyway, the predictability of the job market being what it is (people are working on that predictability, but paying any attention to it doesn't really for the current capitalist model, and they struggle to get sufficient funding for outreach and impact).
We should probably just chuck all research funding then too, I guess. Someone at Harvard will get round to everything eventually.
Ah yes Harvard, an institution that commands exorbitant fees in exchange for the chance at a first class eductation, while using the fees to fund first class research and using the endownment from their spin offs to fund free education for gifted but financially challenged students.
Talking past the point doesn't really move the conversation anywhere useful.
I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.
I did the bins too. Many years ago when I was at uni, (some 25 odd years ago....) the depot at Ballyearl. I did Rathcoole, Ballyclare and Shore Road. It was a great job back then, if everybody on your lorry would start early, around 5am, you could be finished up for half 10 or 11 and you got paid for 8 hours no matter how long it took. I think things have changed now though you must do your 8 hours. Probably some EU regulation! (I joke)
LONDON — David Davis believes he doesn't have to be "clever" or "know that much" in order to be Brexit Secretary.
Davis, who is managing Britain's exit from the European Union, told LBC that the only requirement for the job was staying "calm" rather than knowledgeable, or intelligent.
"What's the requirement of my job?" he asked LBC's Nick Ferrari.
"I don't have to be very clever. I don't have to know that much. I just do have to be calm."
The Brexit Secretary, who last week told MPs that his department had not commissioned a single Brexit impact assessment, told Ferrari that he did not believe in attempting to judge how Brexit would impact the economy.
"I don't believe in economic forecasts. They've all been proven wrong," he said, adding later that "anybody can do details."
Davis also accused his colleague, Chancellor Philip Hammond, of misspeaking when he said last week that Britain would pay a divorce bill regardless of the outcome of talks.
The Brexit secretary said Hammond had "slightly misspoke," adding that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that the payment was "contingent on on a deal."
Davis was also pressed on comments he made on Sunday that the Brexit deal agreed last week was merely "a statement of intent" and not legally enforceable.
The comments on the BBC, led to a warning from the Irish government, that they could still block the deal from ratification at the EU summit this week.
Davis downplayed the row, saying that his words at the weekend had been "twisted" out of context.
the only requirement for the job was staying "calm" rather than knowledgeable, or intelligent.
Or they could pay for their own degree, get the better job, and still pay their taxes like everyone else does.
But if you do that you're ensuring that education and good jobs go to the kids of the already wealthy, with almost no opportunity for anyone from a poor background to improve themselves or contribute.
I'd never have gone to uni if I had to pay for it myself (uni costing about 1.5x my student salary), or my parents had to pay for it (they couldn't), but since I did I've been a higher rate tax payer for a few years now. I've easily paid more tax in my career than uni cost, and I needed a degree for this job. Without it I'd likely be earning half of what I do, and likely pay about a quarter of the tax. So am I a net taker or giver in the grand scheme of things?
I have no idea how credible that news organisation is, but in chimes with what other media organisations are saying about Poland.
Another headache for the EU?
I keep banging this drum, but if we had even a barely competent Foreign Secretary, instead of a shambling buffoon, we might have been able to rally the Eastern nations to our side, or at the very least, got them questioning Tusk and Juncker's Brexit strategy and sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels.
Or they could pay for their own degree, get the better job, and still pay their taxes like everyone else does.
But if you do that you're ensuring that education and good jobs go to the kids of the already wealthy, with almost no opportunity for anyone from a poor background to improve themselves or contribute.
I'd never have gone to uni if I had to pay for it myself (uni costing about 1.5x my student salary), or my parents had to pay for it (they couldn't), but since I did I've been a higher rate tax payer for a few years now. I've easily paid more tax in my career than uni cost, and I needed a degree for this job. Without it I'd likely be earning half of what I do, and likely pay about a quarter of the tax. So am I a net taker or giver in the grand scheme of things?
Pretty much this. Free University is a good thing, and benefits the nation.
To be honest, if kindergarten, primary and secondary school are free because it benefits the nation to educate the people, why should the same principle not apply to university? (And why not to apprenticeships?)
The fees system was introduced for two purposes.
1. To save the government from giving as much grants to the universities as previously.
Sadly this is a failure because billions of £ of loans will never be repaid, and will fall to the tax-payer anyway -- but crucially, not for another 25-30 years.
In other words, it's another accounting scam that simply gets costs off the balance sheet now by postponing them.
2. To marketise the higher education system on the theory that marketising things is always good.
Apart from this being automatic rubbish, it isn't working anyway because University of West London and University of Oxford both charge the same for their courses, because it is capped by the government, and there is no market.
I also fundamentally disagree that education should be like buying fish. It concerns peoples' lives and the life of the whole country.
Education is how we've grown not just as a society, but as a species - the handing down of knowledge hard won speeds up progress.
To arbitrarily shut that down is unfair and pointless.
Consider folk like me. As I've said, I've got the merest clutch of GCSEs, but now have an excellent job many graduates would give their eye teeth for.
I didn't get to Uni in the end because I just wasn't ready in terms of maturity. The GCSE courses turned me off, and I languished for years in fairly menial low paid jobs.
Whilst I got lucky, there's many others in the same boat as me, people who didn't reach their potential in the 5-18 age group, only properly getting into gear later.
Does it make sense that they can't now go back into education without incurring crippling debt?
You say Uni isn't for everyone. And you're right, it's not. But that decision shouldn't boil down to 'can I afford this' - ever. I'd far rather thousands drop out in their first few months that a single student miss out on achieving their potential.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
That may sound harsh, but it's realpolitik. We are after all leaving the EU. A friendly, working relationship is good, no argument from me, but it will never be a univeral pact of brotherly love.
I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
This is why you get accused of thinking in the past - almost no-one alive now is old enough to remember this happening at the time. You're also glossing over the efforts the Polish put in to help us, and the suffering they faced for another 40 years under the Soviet Union. How long do we get to lord it over them for? 100 years? 200? Does that forgive anything we do in the interim?
I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.
I was wrong...
I wasn't even expecting basic competence, and I'm disappointed. So you shouldn't feel too bad about getting this one wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.
A lot of people were expecting the Brexit talks to have collapsed by now, and for May to have been ejected because of the shambles of June's election, but here we are, finishing 2017 with May as PM, and Brexit talks moving on to phase 2.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.
It would also help if we didn't have huge portions of our media railing against "eastern europeans swarming over here and stealing all the jobs/houses/NHS money/benefits etc."
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.
We didn't throw them under the bus in 1945. We recognised the reality of the situation: the Red Army controlled Poland, and we weren't prepared to fight them for Poland.
And of course, the USA, FDR in particular, had been seduced by Stalin, so the Americans wouldn't have went to war either.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
This is why you get accused of thinking in the past - almost no-one alive now is old enough to remember this happening at the time. You're also glossing over the efforts the Polish put in to help us, and the suffering they faced for another 40 years under the Soviet Union. How long do we get to lord it over them for? 100 years? 200? Does that forgive anything we do in the interim?
I naively expected a modicum of at least basic competence. Like when the French told Bojo in confidence not to tell anybody else about a possible deal in Libya, I foolishly believed he could have kept his trap shut and not spilt the beans.
I was wrong...
I wasn't even expecting basic competence, and I'm disappointed. So you shouldn't feel too bad about getting this one wrong.
I'm not glossing over Polish efforts in WW2
I'm merely reacting to the idea that Britain should have put in lot of spade work to get Poland on side in the Brexit talks. It was Britain that pushed for Poland's entry into the EU, and of course, the WW2 thing.
At the very least, I'm saying we should have some credit in the Polish goodwill bank.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...
Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.
Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.
Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
And threw them under the bus in 1945. Britain and France failed in their original war aims.
It would also help if we didn't have huge portions of our media railing against "eastern europeans swarming over here and stealing all the jobs/houses/NHS money/benefits etc."
You're mistaking a few vocal, Dad's Army types as the bulk of our media. That's not the case.
Newspaper readership numbers have been falling since the 1990s. IMO, newspapers are not as influential as they used to be.
I went to university too, but that Bachelors In Modern History ain't doing me much good though.
I did the bins too. Many years ago when I was at uni, (some 25 odd years ago....) the depot at Ballyearl. I did Rathcoole, Ballyclare and Shore Road. It was a great job back then, if everybody on your lorry would start early, around 5am, you could be finished up for half 10 or 11 and you got paid for 8 hours no matter how long it took. I think things have changed now though you must do your 8 hours. Probably some EU regulation! (I joke)
Na, I did 3 days as a Binman in summer of 2016 and that was still the case. You did your assigned rounds, and if you cracked on and finished early you got to go home early. You were still technically on the clock, so the HQ could call you and send you off to assist another crew that was falling behind on their rounds but if you'd already gone home they generally wouldn't bother.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...
Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.
Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.
Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
Kilkrazy wrote: I hardly think sowing the seeds of doubt in Brussels is consistent with maintaining a friendly future cooperative relationship with the EU.
That said, Poland does seem to be trending towards populist nationalism, which is a worry.
It's a pity that the UK is not as influential in Poland as we were a couple of years ago. We might have been able to help reduce this tendency.
We went to war in 1939 to defend Poland. If that's not enough to gain influence, I don't know what the feth is.
As for your other point, for sure, it's in our interests to keep friendly relations with Brussels, but that cuts both ways, especially with regard to security and intelligence cooperation.
... ...
Being a voting member of the EU, so when our interests are aligned we co-operate and when they fail to toe the line we approve, we un-co-operate with them.
Having Polish workers here easily, absorbing British culture and values, leaning English to take home.
Brussels has far less interest in friendly relations with us than we do with them. The EU has far less to lose than the UK.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
I had hoped the Brexiteer plan for the UK's future prosperity and international influence was a bit more sophisticated than just waiting for WW3 to break out.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.
I think that when it comes to higher education skills, making them generally accessible is a good thing, whether in the form of loans, taxes, or grants, from government or private sources. Arguing about the format is looking far too closely at the trees, and missing the forest; namely the very basic query of 'Is the 3 year degree format the best way to deliver the kind of education required?'
As thing stand, the majority of students put in just enough work to scrape out with a 2:1, and the knowledge acquired is rarely directly applicable outside of STEM. As was said above (I think it was nfe?), the real skill learned is how to perform basic research and analysis of an issue, and put together a structured opinion on it in a coherent fashion. That's essentially what most papers are graded on. With that being acknowledged, is a three year expensive course the best way to acquire that skill?
Probably not, is the answer. There's some steps being taken to address this now with the courses being shortened to two years, but frankly? A motivated student could easily pick up the general skills learnt over the course of a degree in a year if they wanted to and worked hard. If you were willing to standardise a curriculum with that in mind rather than spreading out across multiple departments, you could likely bring the cost right down too.
Ketara wrote: I think that when it comes to higher education skills, making them generally accessible is a good thing, whether in the form of loans, taxes, or grants, from government or private sources. Arguing about the format is looking far too closely at the trees, and missing the forest; namely the very basic query of 'Is the 3 year degree format the best way to deliver the kind of education required?'
As thing stand, the majority of students put in just enough work to scrape out with a 2:1, and the knowledge acquired is rarely directly applicable outside of STEM. As was said above (I think it was nfe?), the real skill learned is how to perform basic research and analysis of an issue, and put together a structured opinion on it in a coherent fashion. That's essentially what most papers are graded on. With that being acknowledged, is a three year expensive course the best way to acquire that skill?
Probably not, is the answer. There's some steps being taken to address this now with the courses being shortened to two years, but frankly? A motivated student could easily pick up the general skills learnt over the course of a degree in a year if they wanted to and worked hard. If you were willing to standardise a curriculum with that in mind rather than spreading out across multiple departments, you could likely bring the cost right down too.
Radio 4 was discussing this topic this morning, with relation to the proposed 2-year degrees.
As far as I understand it, there already are 2-year degrees, called Foundation degrees, but these are regarded as lower quality than full 3-year (or Scottish 4-year) degrees, as they contain less teaching. The government's new idea is that the 30 weeks of terms in a standard university academic year (24 weeks at Oxbridge) -- which is 90 teaching weeks in a full degree -- can be put into two years of 45 weeks each.
The counter-argument is that the Russell Group universities may not agree to this, since their teaching staff are also their research staff, and have a lot of work outside the lecture theatre. That would lead to a two-tier system in which a degree from the University of Oxford is considered better than a degree from the University of West London.
OTOH this situation already exists. It is well-known that some universities are better than others, attract and matriculate better quality students, and turn them out with higher skills in whatever degrees they choose to study.
I do agree that a lot of the general skills in many degrees can be taught fairly quickly. When I went back as a mature student to Birkbeck, three of the modules or courses in my degree were "Essay writing for academic purpsoes", "Research skills for business students", and "Numerical methods for business". Much of the material would be appropriate for any degree that was not highly maths or lab based.
The risk with condensed degree courses is again, funding. 45 weeks of course a year (7 off), means a lot less summer and thus makes it impossible to get a summer job. The extra workload probably also rules out being able to do an evening/weekend job at the same time.
It also adds a lot of additional pressure.
If I could afford it; I'd be all for a more compressed schedule, but it's not always possible.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft?
Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.
It's interesting that everyone I've bumped into this "you'll need us when Putin invades" rhetoric are also the ones most vocally opposed to EU military integration (and immediately vehemently deny both statements are in any way connected).
Only a few fringe cases but still food for thought.
I'm opposed to EU Military Integration. Europe does not need us because Putin is not going to invade.
Putin is a trumped up bogeyman that the EU is exploiting to justify more empire building projects (expanding EU influence into the Ukraine, establishing an EU military).
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.
you are going to have to explain this one. What it looks like, is you've used a pointless comparison to score points without thinking it through. The deployment of aircraft carriers would be utterly useless in this respect. We have one of the most capable, flexible and reliable armed forces in the world. Second only to the US. To call us unreliable is so wrong it verges on insulting.
The influence we get over Poland by both being members of the EU is different to the influence we get by both being members of NATO.
Within the EU both nations co-operate constantly on many different projects ranging from standards to the EU Bank to Euratom to Europol, and so on.
In NATO both nations co-operate on military preparedness under the leadership of the USA.
Automatically Appended Next Post: An example would be the European City of Culture. While in the EU, we can help Poland get City of Culture for somewhere like Bydgoszcz or Włocławek. In NATO we can help do some tank training exercises.
Of course, by leaving the EU we do not lose our ability to co-operate on the tank training.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm opposed to EU Military Integration.
Europe does not need us because Putin is not going to invade.
That, and that Europe on its own spends several times the Russian defence spending. Just a little optimisation and it's done.
Putin is a trumped up bogeyman that the EU is exploiting to justify more empire building projects (expanding EU influence into the Ukraine, establishing an EU military).
So what does that make of NATO? Should it be dismantled?
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.
you are going to have to explain this one. What it looks like, is you've used a pointless comparison to score points without thinking it through. The deployment of aircraft carriers would be utterly useless in this respect. We have one of the most capable, flexible and reliable armed forces in the world. Second only to the US. To call us unreliable is so wrong it verges on insulting.
Not unreliable in the operational level, unreliable in the sense the UK has tried to use security and defence cooperation as a bargaining chip. Same as the Trump noises about everyone in NATO not pulling their weight.
If the bullets start flying in Eastern Europe, us and the French will be on Brussels' speed dial list, and you can bet your mortgage that Juncker will get whiplash from u-turning on his views of Britain.
Brussels pen pushers won't stop Russian aggression with red tape.
It'll be the cold steel of NATO i.e us, the French, and the Yanks.
And that's why the EU is trying to reduce reliance on unreliable allies (us and the Yanks). How are we going to be useful in Eastern Europe with an aircraft carrier with no aircraft? Will we really pull a Trump and only agree to help if we get paid? How is Junckers view of Britain going to change? He seems to already like the UK, but has no intentions of violating the EU principles to give us a free ride.
you are going to have to explain this one. What it looks like, is you've used a pointless comparison to score points without thinking it through. The deployment of aircraft carriers would be utterly useless in this respect. We have one of the most capable, flexible and reliable armed forces in the world. Second only to the US. To call us unreliable is so wrong it verges on insulting.
Didn't we just get a new carrier with no aircraft due to budget?
I meant unreliable in a uk government using it as a bargaining chip, though I've heard plenty of horror stories of unsuitable kit and chronic underfunding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If students were not paying tuition and hall fees, they would not have so much need for weekend/summer jobs.
Exactly. And might get better grades / experience out of it. I know my education suffered from working evenings/nights/weekends
If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
I'm' not so sure; the maintenance payments are theoretically to provide everything. The payments would just go down to cover what students still needed to spend.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
I'm' not so sure; the maintenance payments are theoretically to provide everything. The payments would just go down to cover what students still needed to spend.
Theoretically. When my missus was at Kent, after accommodation she had about 50 quid left a month for everything else.
Whirlwind wrote:Our guidance basically limits how flammable materials can be but doesn't prescribe how to undertake those tests or ban materials outright. Hence it is left to industry to determine what is appropriate and reasonable. The were warnings before on this but the government delayed updating the rules.
It is also unreasonable to blame local councils. They have to procure services and have to decide in that procurement what standards to meet. However you cannot expect a procurement manager to know whether government guidance is suitable or not. That is not their expertise. As such the procurements will state that "they must meet the generals standards set out in X". If the bidding companies provide evidence that they meet those standards then I am not exactly sure what you are expecting them to do. They haven't decided to allow proposals that breach UK rules, quite the opposite, but they can't be expected to know the in's and outs of whether there are weaknesses in the tests. That is why we have standards so everyone doesn't have to be an expert in everything.
We have to be a little bit careful about what we say as this is part of an ongoing investigation. Suffice to say that there is a British standard for cladding in this use and the cladding in question did not meet that standard. It is alleged that the council knew this was this case but proceeded anyway in order to save money.
That's not correct at all. The cladding did meet the standards when it was put on the building. We had this discussion before and the fire safety certificate was both provided to show that it met the appropriate safety standards (but not the EU safety standards) previously if you cared to search. What you are confusing is that these materials after they have been put on the buildings became more flammable than the standard lab tests reported. It appears that according to studies that the reason they failed is because weathering of the material by water results in the water acting like an accelerant and hence igniting the material faster. Ironically it could have been the fire services own attempts to control the blaze that actually resulted in the inferno (not that they were in any way to blame or to know this).
This goes for the Council. Because it met the safety regulations in place and the appropriate standards they chose a cheaper material. Yes a rock based material would have not ignited, but neither the Council, the fire brigade and even the management company are likely to be at blame because by default they met the standards and they all relied on the standards that were in place. The standards failed because they failed to consider the real world situation (rather like testing cars in a lab in perfect conditions).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
In the "good old days" when I went to medical school, the early 1980s, you got a means tested grant which for most people covered the hall fees and some extras (books, travel.) Tuition was free.
OTOH far fewer places were available. If the government thinks it's a good idea for more people to go to university, they might perhaps consider helping to pay for it.
No-one thinks its weird for the government to pay for infrastructure like roads and railways. They benefit the entire nation, even people who don't directly use them. it's the same with education.
Apology's for the wall of text, been at work all day and trying to catch up.
NinthMusketeer wrote:The problem with the argument of the binman paying for education is that he doesn't. His taxes are a drop in the bucket. The ones raking in millions a year? It's the taxes on them that pays for education of the binman's kid. That's how it really works, which is why the wealthy are so desperate to get away from that. And when the wealthy are screwing over everyone else to benefit themselves, crashing the economy for everyone seems like a reasonable chance to take because most of everyone already lives there.
Except there's a fairly finite amount of money you can squeeze out of the rich (especially the super rich), which has been proven time and again. These are people with the ability to spend large amounts of money in order to avoid paying enormous amounts of tax. Though they pay a lot of income tax, the portion isn't quite as big as some people think. Their National Insurance and VAT contributions are also somewhat more muted, though still significant. This is why Gordon Brown became famous for his vast array of "stealth taxes", an avenue that has been eagerly embraced by the Conservatives, because taxes on things like fuel and beer are much harder to evade. When more tax income is required, it's never just a case of saying "let's stick another 5% on the rich". That works as a vote attracting policy, but as a revenue raiser it's not great. What normally ends up happening is a hike in something like VAT (now at 20% thanks to our allegedly tax opposed conservative overlords), a tax which falls disproportionately on the poor. Make no mistake, the rich are not going to pay for universal education. Everyone else is.
nfe wrote:Yep. I'll cheerfully pay an extra £20 a month for anyone to study anything. I earn less that binmen. Additionally, a tiered system that makes value judgements about the worthiness of research fields is not helpful. People are excited about interdisciplinary research projects for a reason. All research has merit and frequent contributions are made across fields. Currently there's a lot of cross pollination between urban developmers, environmental scientists, human geographers, and archaeologists, for example.
All research having merit is a somewhat bold statement (pick up virtually any exercise science paper...). But I'm not sure of your reasoning behind the above statement? In a free market the research fields will find their desired funding according to how useful/required they are. The problems start when the state intervenes and tells universities what they should be funding.
According to your arbitrary criteria.
Not an arbitrary criteria. It has been a common problem for several years now of their being an oversupply of certain qualifications, such as criminal pathology and related subjects vs the number of actual jobs available in these fields. Psychology is normally in the top ten of most popular degree courses taken, but the number of actual jobs in a related field at the other end is again somewhat limited.
Not at undergrad it isn't. It's about getting a vague background in a subject whilst learning how to conduct analysis and research in a given field. Some people get more than that, of course, but that's what's in it for the majority, and that's its purpose as conceived by nigh-on everyone teaching in anything but the most vocational courses - which frequently fail to get people jobs anyway, the predictability of the job market being what it is (people are working on that predictability, but paying any attention to it doesn't really for the current capitalist model, and they struggle to get sufficient funding for outreach and impact).
That tends to be more true for certain subjects in the humanities branch than others. Law for example is about delving into the world of how the UK legal system works. Coming out the other end, the graduate should have a much better understanding of the subject than your average joe. Part of the problem facing university grads has been that many of the courses available are not specific enough to their subject and the bearer as such is not quite as advanced in the subject as would be hoped. In the "hard" sciences something will have gone horribly wrong if you come out the other side of 3 years of training with just a vague background in a subject.
Talking past the point doesn't really move the conversation anywhere useful.
I was trying to point out to you that Harvard is a very expensive fee paying university, yet it also has world class research facilities and uses some of its income to fund bright students from poor backgrounds, things that people seem oddly to believe would not happen if you uncapped uni fees and removed most state support for applicants.
Kilkrazy wrote:To be honest, if kindergarten, primary and secondary school are free because it benefits the nation to educate the people, why should the same principle not apply to university?
Your average household cannot afford to pay for that many years worth of education for a kid. Once you get to university level a couple of things have now happened. 1) the prospective student is about to embark on a very narrow band of education. The utility of giving them a general education no longer exists. 2) It's a much shorter period, and they themselves are now capable of carrying the financial burden. 3) The pool of people looking to go to uni has shrunk dramatically since the secondary level. The people embarking on this next course stand to gain a significant competitve advantage in the future labour force. They should pay for this advantage themselves.
2. To marketise the higher education system on the theory that marketising things is always good. Apart from this being automatic rubbish, it isn't working anyway because University of West London and University of Oxford both charge the same for their courses, because it is capped by the government, and there is no market. I also fundamentally disagree that education should be like buying fish. It concerns peoples' lives and the life of the whole country.
So you're arguing that the proof marketising education isn't working is because we haven't done it yet and that hasn't worked? That's a very odd conclusion to come to. It's not really like buying fish though is it. It's like buying a house. It's something that people think about for several years before they do it. Perhaps if there wasn't so much pressure for people to immediately go from a-levels to a degree we'd get more mature students having a go, maybe a few years after they've left school but before having a family.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Does it make sense that they can't now go back into education without incurring crippling debt? You say Uni isn't for everyone. And you're right, it's not. But that decision shouldn't boil down to 'can I afford this' - ever. I'd far rather thousands drop out in their first few months that a single student miss out on achieving their potential.
Except that they don't start repaying it until they're earning almost double the minimum wage, at which point the annual repayments are less than a quarter of what some people pay in monthly mortgage repayments. And if they don't pay it off in a certain time period it's written off. And the whole thing is secured by the government. By any definition it's the complete opposite of crippling debt, as it represents some of the most generous lending terms you can find in the modern world.
Whirlwind wrote:
That's not correct at all. The cladding did meet the standards when it was put on the building. We had this discussion before and the fire safety certificate was both provided to show that it met the appropriate safety standards (but not the EU safety standards) previously if you cared to search. What you are confusing is that these materials after they have been put on the buildings became more flammable than the standard lab tests reported. It appears that according to studies that the reason they failed is because weathering of the material by water results in the water acting like an accelerant and hence igniting the material faster. Ironically it could have been the fire services own attempts to control the blaze that actually resulted in the inferno (not that they were in any way to blame or to know this).
This goes for the Council. Because it met the safety regulations in place and the appropriate standards they chose a cheaper material. Yes a rock based material would have not ignited, but neither the Council, the fire brigade and even the management company are likely to be at blame because by default they met the standards and they all relied on the standards that were in place. The standards failed because they failed to consider the real world situation (rather like testing cars in a lab in perfect conditions).
As I said earlier, and reiterate now, we should very careful about talking about this incident as it is the subject of a current police investigation. As such I'll stick only to something that is public knowledge and that is that the company that produces some of the materials used in the cladding have gone on record as saying that their material was never tested in the application used at Grenfell and “would be very surprised if such a system … would ever pass the appropriate British Standard 8414 large-scale test”. Further they added that the product in question "do not meet the limited combustibility requirements” of building regulations guidance.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
I'm' not so sure; the maintenance payments are theoretically to provide everything. The payments would just go down to cover what students still needed to spend.
Theoretically. When my missus was at Kent, after accommodation she had about 50 quid left a month for everything else.
The loan I got never covered my accommodation when I was in student halls, let alone food, textbooks etc. on top of that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
I'm' not so sure; the maintenance payments are theoretically to provide everything. The payments would just go down to cover what students still needed to spend.
Theoretically. When my missus was at Kent, after accommodation she had about 50 quid left a month for everything else.
The loan I got never covered my accommodation when I was in student halls, let alone food, textbooks etc. on top of that.
I studied at Teesside (Middlesbrough), and besides £20 a week from my parents to help with food, I coped just fine on my Student Loan. So I imagine it varies wildly depending on location.
To be fair though I had zero social life, bought very few textbooks of my own and spent no more than £50 a year on alcohol.
jouso wrote: So what does that make of NATO? Should it be dismantled?
It should have been dismantled in 1991.
We agree on something for a change. Refreshing
I consider NATO to be a self justifying organisation.
It's Raison d'etre was to counter the threat of the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact Bloc.
When that Raison d'etre ceased to exist, it should have been dismantled.
Instead, NATO expanded its influence and territory Eastwards up to the borders of the Russian Federation
This naturally makes the modern day Russian Government nervous, so they continually engage in sabre rattling
This reaction to NATO expansionism therefore "justifies" NATO's expansionism and continued existence.
Its why we're engaging in Proxy Wars in Ukraine and elsewhere once again, we never relinquished our Cold War mentality and belligerence towards Russia. Russia should have been invited to join the European Union, or at least the Single Market.
We did it for our former enemy Germany, why not Russia?
Its why we're engaging in Proxy Wars in Ukraine and elsewhere once again, we never relinquished our Cold War mentality and belligerence towards Russia. Russia should have been invited to join the European Union, or at least the Single Market.
We did it for our former enemy Germany, why not Russia?
The would imply Russia giving up it's cold war mentality and belligerence towards NATO countries as well, which never happened.
Didn't we just get a new carrier with no aircraft due to budget?
With what looks like antiqued windows as the core OS. Albeit probably modified but not sure how much help that is. That or the OS used in at least part of ship looks eerily close to out of date windows
Except there's a fairly finite amount of money you can squeeze out of the rich (especially the super rich), which has been proven time and again. These are people with the ability to spend large amounts of money in order to avoid paying enormous amounts of tax. Though they pay a lot of income tax, the portion isn't quite as big as some people think. Their National Insurance and VAT contributions are also somewhat more muted, though still significant. This is why Gordon Brown became famous for his vast array of "stealth taxes", an avenue that has been eagerly embraced by the Conservatives, because taxes on things like fuel and beer are much harder to evade. When more tax income is required, it's never just a case of saying "let's stick another 5% on the rich". That works as a vote attracting policy, but as a revenue raiser it's not great. What normally ends up happening is a hike in something like VAT (now at 20% thanks to our allegedly tax opposed conservative overlords), a tax which falls disproportionately on the poor. Make no mistake, the rich are not going to pay for universal education. Everyone else is.
Yeah the "make rich pay more" gets tossed popularly in Finland too. Of course rich being less in numbers means though that while individually they possess lots of wealth it's still not that much. I read article that calculated that if you put up income of all what would be considered here rich and put them 100% tax rate AND enforced it(ie the guys would literally get not one cent on their own. Poorer than unemployed in effect!) this would still not fix goverment's budget.
And good luck getting anybody to accept 100% tax rate Not to mention rich people are the ones that can more easily simply leave the country and avoid taxes to that country more easily than common worker.
Didn't we just get a new carrier with no aircraft due to budget?
With what looks like antiqued windows as the core OS. Albeit probably modified but not sure how much help that is. That or the OS used in at least part of ship looks eerily close to out of date windows
The new aircraft carriers are running on a custom OS. Windows for warships was last being used in 2013. Although it’s not a bad thing. The ships are not connected to a network, the version of windows they are using is pretty heavily customised, very well understood, stable and UI is not a big issue in a military context.
Except there's a fairly finite amount of money you can squeeze out of the rich (especially the super rich), which has been proven time and again. These are people with the ability to spend large amounts of money in order to avoid paying enormous amounts of tax. Though they pay a lot of income tax, the portion isn't quite as big as some people think. Their National Insurance and VAT contributions are also somewhat more muted, though still significant. This is why Gordon Brown became famous for his vast array of "stealth taxes", an avenue that has been eagerly embraced by the Conservatives, because taxes on things like fuel and beer are much harder to evade. When more tax income is required, it's never just a case of saying "let's stick another 5% on the rich". That works as a vote attracting policy, but as a revenue raiser it's not great. What normally ends up happening is a hike in something like VAT (now at 20% thanks to our allegedly tax opposed conservative overlords), a tax which falls disproportionately on the poor. Make no mistake, the rich are not going to pay for universal education. Everyone else is.
Yeah the "make rich pay more" gets tossed popularly in Finland too. Of course rich being less in numbers means though that while individually they possess lots of wealth it's still not that much. I read article that calculated that if you put up income of all what would be considered here rich and put them 100% tax rate AND enforced it(ie the guys would literally get not one cent on their own. Poorer than unemployed in effect!) this would still not fix goverment's budget.
And good luck getting anybody to accept 100% tax rate Not to mention rich people are the ones that can more easily simply leave the country and avoid taxes to that country more easily than common worker.
But the wealthy like to remind us how they contribute some massive share of the tax and pay for most things the government does. The exact share depends on the country. Anyway, in first world countries wealth inequality is far more of an issue. The UK and he US have a huge issue with wealth inequality. It is a major cause of social and economic problems. Finland is one of the more equitable countries. In the UK and US some of the very wealthy leaving would not be a bad thing. Part of our housing crisis is down to a small number of people owning a large amount of housing. Major apartment developments in London set up sales offices in Russia and China. Wealthy people use these are investments, often leaving the flats empty for years, with blocks half full, and just sit on them watching the value go up and up.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If students were not paying tuition and residence hall fees, they probably would not be getting the publicly funded Student maintenance loans that they currently get, and so they'd still need to work to support themselves in their food, equipment, travel costs etc.
I'm' not so sure; the maintenance payments are theoretically to provide everything. The payments would just go down to cover what students still needed to spend.
Theoretically. When my missus was at Kent, after accommodation she had about 50 quid left a month for everything else.
The loan I got never covered my accommodation when I was in student halls, let alone food, textbooks etc. on top of that.
I studied at Teesside (Middlesbrough), and besides £20 a week from my parents to help with food, I coped just fine on my Student Loan. So I imagine it varies wildly depending on location.
To be fair though I had zero social life, bought very few textbooks of my own and spent no more than £50 a year on alcohol.
Yeah, Kent was extremely expensive. But Elliot was built by a guy who designed prisons and it certainly looked like one. And sleeping on the floor was horrid.
Also, I would like to say happy 200th page! Somehow we made it this far without the thread being banned like the US politics, and apart from a few heated moments, no one has really been banned from it either!
Yeah, Kent was extremely expensive. But Elliot was built by a guy who designed prisons and it certainly looked like one. And sleeping on the floor was horrid.
Also, I would like to say happy 200th page! Somehow we made it this far without the thread being banned like the US politics, and apart from a few heated moments, no one has really been banned from it either!
Britain, paving the way since 1066!
Eliot and Rutherford were horrible
I can remember one time trying to get out of Eliot after an exam. We ended up wandering through a narrow corridor, no windows and the lights flickering, walking past doors with names such as "Sexuality Research". Then we got to what seemed like an empty security office and finally a door to the outside world.
With regards to the tax contribution of the rich, the UK did not use to have a serious finance problem. It has developed while the tax rates on the rich and in particular on business have been reduced over the past generation.
The doubling of the national debt since 2007 was largely caused by the government bailing out the banks. Private businesses were saved from bankruptcy by tax payers' money.
From this perspective, while I acknowledge that demands have increased (e.g. housing benefit, paid to private landlords) I believe that low taxation is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
One only needs so much as cursory glance at the growing gap between the haves and have nots to see that something is desperately wrong with the current model.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
One only needs so much as cursory glance at the growing gap between the haves and have nots to see that something is desperately wrong with the current model.
This is what has led to Trumpism, the Brexit vote, and the revival of the hard left.
Vast numbers of people no longer believe in neo-liberal market capitalism because it hasn't worked for them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
That really gaks me off. If private companies / individuals can make a fortune from council rents, then why can't the council? Why aren't the council buying/building up the housing stock and renting it out at a profit?
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have had to allocate nearly £300 million to buy houses for the people made homeless from the Grenfell disaster.
It makes the £500,000 they saved by a cheapo cladding job and no sprinkler system look quite the false economy.
To say nothing of the 71 who died.
To answer your question, because of a generation of governments who believed that the free market is automatically superior to any community or social effort, local councils are not allowed to buy or build new council housing stock.
It’s disgusting how the rich are able to buy up entire apartment blocks to hoard for profit whilst the rest of us struggle to find homes. I like to think that I’m a free market capitalist but this cannot be allowed to continue.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Indeed. The whole private landlords getting council money is pretty much just a scam, and one easily avoided by investing in social housing stock.
That really gaks me off. If private companies / individuals can make a fortune from council rents, then why can't the council? Why aren't the council buying/building up the housing stock and renting it out at a profit?
Because it is illegal for Councils to make a profit. They can only ever cover their overheads and costs. This all came about because of the pre1980s and 1990s Tory government (no surprise there) where they effectively forced Councils to dump anything that was profitable into the private sector.
We just need a load more houses on the market. Maybe bring in a law that means that if a house isn't lived in for X amount of time it gets forced to be sold?
Doesn't stop people from buying up entire estates and then renting them though.
Just need to build more social housing stock for new tenants, and tax second home and Buy-To-Let empires out the backside of next week.
It would also help massively if those currently struggling to save a deposit and that just stopped.
Why bust your hump now to buy your Starter Bijou Matchbox property, when you know it's massively overpriced and it's just a matter of time until the bubble bursts, and you're trapped in negative equity....