The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.
Graphite wrote: What's this nonsense about "enforcing" payment of an international debt? What are the "International community" going to do - invade and repossess the television?
No. What happens is that the EU and UK work out what they feel would be a reasonable payment, in whichever direction. If the UK either doesn't negotiate it, or doesn't pay it, NO OTHER COUNTRY EVER TRUSTS US AGAIN..
The Uk can argue that there is no debt to begin with as the EU doenst work on a credit basis. Our financial commitments are part of being a member, if we are not members and not getting the benefits of membership we dont need to pay, or at least should contest the billing raised. Also note that this is bill the EU wants paid prior to negotiating (at extra cost) for trade deals.
It is not however a debt default, so trust or lack thereof doesn't come into it.
Put it this way. If it was a debt we would know how much and why. There are no statutory bills for leaving the EU, and no actual debt of any kind.
We don't even know what the EU want to bill us because its an arbitrary fee the EU bureaucracy are trying to extract from us.
The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.
I assume that the better educated tend to have more exposure to other cultures. In most industries, any business above the coalface usually involves meetings with other people which quite often means other countries/cultures etc. I deal with foreign peers on a daily basis, but I didn't when I worked nightclubs.
There's probably some correlation between education level and curiosity / horizon expanding as well. Visiting different culture on holiday Vs just getting plastered in Costa Del Sol.
Other studies have shown that higher educational attainment correlates with higher intelligence, and with increased ethical development.
How long are you going to persist with this 'conservatives are thick tangent'? Weren't you talking about this last week?
The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.
I assume that the better educated tend to have more exposure to other cultures. In most industries, any business above the coalface usually involves meetings with other people which quite often means other countries/cultures etc. I deal with foreign peers on a daily basis, but I didn't when I worked nightclubs.
There's probably some correlation between education level and curiosity / horizon expanding as well. Visiting different culture on holiday Vs just getting plastered in Costa Del Sol.
Other studies have shown that higher educational attainment correlates with higher intelligence, and with increased ethical development.
How long are you going to persist with this 'conservatives are thick tangent'? Weren't you talking about this last week?
Just because someone leans a political way does not make them enlightened or stupid.
Some liberals are total morons who are grounded in helium and belive we can negoiate with Isis and that economy is funded on a unicorn powered money tree.
Likewise some are genius level, and some conservetives may be a Einstein or a total idiot who thinks that life revolves around thr pub, take away and beating up rival football fans.
No set value here. No set stats for a person of particular leaning.
Ketara wrote: I think on the matter of the Brexit 'bill', there's a certain degree of disingenuity going on from the EU. Not, I hasten to add, the EU as an entity, but from certain aspects within it. Namely those who are obsessed with trying to make talks either break down or 'punish' the UK, the sorts who Juncker and his cohorts represent. I don't believe that they represent the EU in its entirety, and I don't even think they necessarily control affairs. But they do have quite a strong voice out there, and it is I think, important that their voice is not permitted to be the dominant one. Their voice is one of the reasons Brexit is occuring, and if it is allowed to sabotage future relations between the UK and EU, it will be catastrophic for all involved.
I'm puzzled you think that way. How do you think austerity was imposed in EU as the norm? It's because of people like those you described had the strong calls to force it upon the hapless countries and people. They really are the ones who decide.
Why do you think UK would be an exception? Because you thought you were all high and mighty enough to be spared of the grudge from the EU decision makers?
I suggest you to go back to reality. It's pretty clear a lot of them won't let UK go without having to pay dearly for their decision. They don't want it another way. For a good reason; people must be punished for what they have done, to keep others from following the same way than UK. This is the thought that actually rules EU (and frankly, a lot of countries in the world).
Yes, it will be catastrophic. It can't be another way. It calls for disaster, as usual. And its supporters will not see it before it's too late. As always.
Ketara wrote: I think on the matter of the Brexit 'bill', there's a certain degree of disingenuity going on from the EU. Not, I hasten to add, the EU as an entity, but from certain aspects within it. Namely those who are obsessed with trying to make talks either break down or 'punish' the UK, the sorts who Juncker and his cohorts represent. I don't believe that they represent the EU in its entirety, and I don't even think they necessarily control affairs. But they do have quite a strong voice out there, and it is I think, important that their voice is not permitted to be the dominant one. Their voice is one of the reasons Brexit is occuring, and if it is allowed to sabotage future relations between the UK and EU, it will be catastrophic for all involved.
I'm puzzled you think that way. How do you think austerity was imposed in EU as the norm? It's because of people like those you described had the strong calls to force it upon the hapless countries and people.
Why do you think UK would be an exception? Because you thought you were all high and mighty enough to be spared of the grudge from the EU decision makers?
I suggest you to go back to reality. It's pretty clear a lot of them won't let UK go without having to pay dearly for their decision. They don't want it another way. For a good reason; people must be punished for what they have done, to keep others from following the same way than UK. This is the thought that rules EU (and frankly, a lot of countries in the world).
Yes, it will be catastrophic. It can't be another way. It calls for disaster, as usual. And its supporters will not see it before it's too late. As always.
Careful there. Your true colours are showing through.
Careful there. Your true colours are showing through.
What do you mean ? It's obvious the EU decision makers are really holding a grudge against UK decision makers. Because the latter ones really put the first in a big mess. And it is really a struggle for EU as well; what do you think would happen if other countries not satisfied with the way EU works right now see that UK quietly walks away without any trouble, and actually gain more than they lost? It's just a logical conclusion EU decision makers would try to make it as harsh and hard for UK as possible.
I'm not saying the current situation is a good one. I actually don't like what is happening. But when I read something like that, I'm really puzzled you would believe they wouldn't act another way, just because you fear being beaten with the hard part of the stick. They will use the hard part of the stick. Because they have to set an example for other countries thinking of doing the same.
I'm puzzled you think that way. How do you think austerity was imposed in EU as the norm? It's because of people like those you described had the strong calls to force it upon the hapless countries and people.
It wasn't? I know Greece got made to carry the can when their economy collapsed, but that's about the only case of any country being made to obey any central EU diktats with regards to finance. Everyone else does what they want. Have you seen France's finances lately?
Why do you think UK would be an exception? Because you thought you were all high and mighty enough to be spared of the grudge from the EU decision makers?
Because they don't run the EU, they merely influence it. I estimated prior to the vote, and I reckon even now that the lobbyists of big companies and central governments carry equal weight. I don't believe they'll allow Juncker and co. full rein to do as they will.
And if they do? In all seriousness, at that point I'd say we made the right call regardless of the cost. Because if people like that are genuinely calling the shots within the EU, if they actually have that sort of power, a decade of crippling economic pain would be worth escaping their clutches.
Either way we win, I think (well, from a specific angle ). Either we'll get a reasonable deal that works (more or less) and keeps everything for everyone ticking along with only some minor damage on both sides, or it will be clear that we just managed to jump ship before the EU evolved down the path I feared it would when I voted to leave. That's my view anyway. YMMV.
Careful there. Your true colours are showing through.
What do you mean ? It's obvious the EU decision makers are really holding a grudge against UK decision makers. Because the latter ones really put the first in a big mess. And it is really a struggle for EU as well; what do you think would happen if other countries not satisfied with the way EU works right now see that UK quietly walks away without any trouble, and actually gain more than they lost? It's just a logical conclusion EU decision makers would try to make it as harsh and hard for UK as possible.
I'm not saying the current situation is a good one. I actually don't like what is happening. But when I read something like that, I'm really puzzled you would believe they wouldn't act another way, just because you fear being beaten with the hard part of the stick. They will use the hard part of the stick. Because they have to set an example for other countries thinking of doing the same.
While that maybe true.
Of we have no chance of victory then why should we not stand up, tell them to shove it and leave em on Monday.
We are not beholden to a Junker who loves a few drinks, a German woman who thinks she runs Europe like her private empire.
Why drag it out if that's true and Stand up regardless because no matter how we play that scenario wr lose.
Is rather live in a free nation than under a europeen jack boot if that's the case.
We have survived against the odds alongside our commonwealth allies. We can do so once more if needed.
Careful there. Your true colours are showing through.
What do you mean ? It's obvious the EU decision makers are really holding a grudge against UK decision makers. Because the latter ones really put the first in a big mess. And it is really a struggle for EU as well; what do you think would happen if other countries not satisfied with the way EU works right now see that UK quietly walks away without any trouble, and actually gain more than they lost? It's just a logical conclusion EU decision makers would try to make it as harsh and hard for UK as possible.
I'm not saying the current situation is a good one. I actually don't like what is happening. But when I read something like that, I'm really puzzled you would believe they wouldn't act another way, just because you fear being beaten with the hard part of the stick. They will use the hard part of the stick. Because they have to set an example for other countries thinking of doing the same.
I'm puzzled you think that way. How do you think austerity was imposed in EU as the norm? It's because of people like those you described had the strong calls to force it upon the hapless countries and people.
It wasn't? I know Greece got made to carry the can when their economy collapsed, but that's about the only case of any country being made to obey any central EU diktats with regards to finance. Everyone else does what they want. Have you seen France's finances lately?
France's finances aren't that catastrophic, but some people have a lot of interests to make it look that way. As you said, YMMV.
Besides, I'm not talking just about Greece. Greece is the poor defenseless guy bullied in school. I'm just saying that your optimism about EU decision makers finally coming to reason and deciding to let UK go peacefully without any real trouble is just that; optimism. What happened so far in recent history is that EU decision makers don't want to make life easier for people trying to go against their interests.
Because they don't run the EU, they merely influence it. I estimated prior to the vote, and I reckon even now that the lobbyists of big companies and central governments carry equal weight. I don't believe they'll allow Juncker and co. full rein to do as they will.
This is based about your point of view, indeed. Where are the proofs of that? Big companies aren't especially cheerleading for UK - when your politicians tried to go to Germany and talk to big patrons there, they weren't really welcomed as they thought they would. They are only looking for their own interests, and it doesn't have to be linked to the fate of one's country. If they have to leave the UK's sinking ship...they will. Money doesn't care for nationalism.
And to be honest, some companies already showed they won't hesitate to let the UK's ship sinking deep into the sea.
Either way we win, I think. Either we'll get a reasonable deal that works (more or less) and keeps everything for everyone ticking along with only some minor damage on both sides, or it will be clear that we just managed to jump ship before the EU evolved down the path I feared it would when I voted to leave. That's my view anyway. YMMV.
Sure, you have the right to decide your own way. I'm just saying that wishing EU making it easy for UK because otherwise it will be a disaster is just that; a wish. To me, they will make it as harsh as possible, just to set out an example. No matter what happens to the poor people caught into the fire. That's how EU is ruled so far. I don't see why they would change their ways just because it's UK.
And yes, it needs to be changed. But the causes are much deeper than that.
Careful there. Your true colours are showing through.
What do you mean ? It's obvious the EU decision makers are really holding a grudge against UK decision makers. Because the latter ones really put the first in a big mess. And it is really a struggle for EU as well; what do you think would happen if other countries not satisfied with the way EU works right now see that UK quietly walks away without any trouble, and actually gain more than they lost? It's just a logical conclusion EU decision makers would try to make it as harsh and hard for UK as possible.
I'm not saying the current situation is a good one. I actually don't like what is happening. But when I read something like that, I'm really puzzled you would believe they wouldn't act another way, just because you fear being beaten with the hard part of the stick. They will use the hard part of the stick. Because they have to set an example for other countries thinking of doing the same.
Your post came across as spiteful and vindictive.
Plus economics.
How many German cars, French cars, Italian you see on UK roads.
Lots, many mnay thousands.
Now what if all those new cars where now American, Japan, China or even Korean?
Oh that might hurt. Economics. Both sides rely too much for EU to turn this just into a lets beat the UK over the head game.
Plus economics.
How many German cars, French cars, Italian you see on UK roads.
Lots, many mnay thousands.
Now what if all those new cars where now American, Japan, China or even Korean?
Oh that might hurt. Economics. Both sides rely too much for EU to turn this just into a lets beat the UK over the head game.
Economics go both ways. Why do you think they aren't that many so far? It's because it's more advantageous that way for now. What if the rules are changed? And why do you think you would get a better deal with Japan, America, China or even Korea, when those countries know you are on the weak side, having to find another market at all costs ?
What UK really is exporting that the other countries don't already give? Think more about it.
Besides, I'm not talking just about Greece. Greece is the poor defenseless guy bullied in school. I'm just saying that your optimism about EU decision makers finally coming to reason and deciding to let UK go peacefully without any real trouble is just that; optimism. What happened so far in recent history is that EU decision makers don't want to make life easier for people trying to go against their interests.
I don't disagree that some of them are indeed like that. I think that there are more highminded people in Brussels than you give credit for though. I think for every Juncker, there is likely to be someone less ...shall we say, unreasonable?
This is based about your point of view, indeed. Where are the proofs of that? Big companies aren't especially cheerleading for UK - when your politicians tried to go to Germany and talk to big patrons there, they weren't really welcomed as they thought they would. They are only looking for their own interests, and it doesn't have to be linked to the fate of one's country. If they have to leave the UK's sinking ship...they will. Money doesn't care for nationalism.
There's no proofs for anything as of yet, and there won't be until everything is settled. I'm not entirely certain what sort of 'proof' you're demanding or would accept. Historically speaking though, money talks, and there's a lot of it tied up in trade of various types between the EU and UK; some of it with us as the destination, others with us doing the exporting. Businesses adapt, but only when they have to. There will be intense pressure to maintain arrangements as similar as we have now, I have no doubt of that. Businessmen work with politics as they have to, but they crave stability above all else.
And to be honest, some companies already showed they won't hesitate to let the UK's ship sinking deep into the sea.
Blimey, let's not get too carried away. We're a top five economy with a tremendously strong amount of cultural, industrial, and financial headway. I highly, highly doubt we'll see a repeat of the 1930's any time soon. Anything that did that much damage to us would drag down most of the world with us.
There's us having a recession and us 'sinking deep into the sea'. I know a lot of Remainers are getting vicarious pleasure out of forecasting the latter, but it's mostly rhetorical hyperbole with little in the way of evidence beyond vague predictions of doom and gloom at this stage.
Plus economics.
How many German cars, French cars, Italian you see on UK roads.
Lots, many mnay thousands.
Now what if all those new cars where now American, Japan, China or even Korean?
Oh that might hurt. Economics. Both sides rely too much for EU to turn this just into a lets beat the UK over the head game.
Economics go both ways. Why do you think they aren't that many so far? It's because it's more advantageous that way for now. What if the rules are changed? And why do you think you would get a better deal with Japan, America, China or even Korea, when those countries know you are on the weak side, having to find another market at all costs ?
What UK really is exporting that the other countries don't already give? Think more about it.
While that may be true and wr may have a tough time for a few years.
However. All it shows is how black, cold and vindictive thr heart of Europe is in its true form.
Is it right for them to act so. No.
If fear is all that holds them together then they will crumble. They will break and we will be there inviting others to join us, and stand together.
I don't disagree that some of them are indeed like that. I think that there are more highminded people in Brussels than you give credit for though. I think for every Juncker, there is likely to be someone less ...shall we say, unreasonable?
I understand what you're saying, but I'm asking again; on what basis do you believe they would suddenly go back to reason, when recent history so far showed than they showed no mercy at all whenever they had the chance? Why do you think these reasonnable people would suddenly appear, when it seems they weren't predominant when some really bad decision were taken so far ? That's why I'm saying you're really optimist on that view. It's not talking about "doom and gloom". It's about seeing what happened and was said from both sides so far. I really don't see any reasons it would go that well in the end.
There's no proofs for anything as of yet, and there won't be until everything is settled. I'm not entirely certain what sort of 'proof' you're demanding or would accept. Historically speaking though, money talks, and there's a lot of it tied up in trade of various types between the EU and UK; some of it with us as the destination, others with us doing the exporting. Businesses adapt, but only when they have to. There will be intense pressure to maintain arrangements as similar as we have now, I have no doubt of that. Businessmen work with politics as they have to, but they crave stability above all else.
I feel like you're talking about your ideology, What I mean is that thinking it would come that way is one thing, but that doesn't mean it would become that way just because you believe hard in it and that's it. Indeed, businesses craves stability for sure, but you seem not to see that the Brexit is already a cause of instability for a lot of businesses outside and inside of UK. It still keeps being a source of it, with the sillyness happening in your country right now.
It wouldn't be surprising some companies believe there would be more stability in the EU rather than with a lonely UK. And thus, not needing at all supporting the Brexit idea or staying with the UK. Businesses usually look for big markets, and the EU market is definitely way bigger than the UK one. It's just as simple as that.
Thinking otherwise is national pride, to me. Money doesn't care for that at all. That's what I noticed so far in history.
There's us having a recession and us 'sinking deep into the sea'. I know a lot of Remainers are getting vicarious pleasure out of forecasting the latter, but it's mostly rhetorical hyperbole with little in the way of evidence beyond vague predictions of doom and gloom at this stage.
Of course. But being too optimist without having a contingency plan if things would go bad is also dangerous, IMHO.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm asking again; on what basis do you believe they would suddenly go back to reason, when recent history so far showed than they showed no mercy at all whenever they had the chance? Why do you think these reasonnable people would suddenly appear, when it seems they weren't predominant when some really bad decision were taken so far ? That's why I'm saying you're really optimist on that view. It's not talking about "doom and gloom". It's about seeing what happened and was said from both sides so far. I really don't see any reasons it would go that well in the end.
Different scenarios engender different reactions from different interests. There's been no parallel thus far to Brexit in any capacity. We're breaking new ground. So I'm falling back on what I know of the power structures of the EU and past historical occurrences in similar scenarios.
I feel like you're talking about your ideology, What I mean is that thinking it would come that way is one thing, but that doesn't mean it would become that way just because you believe hard in it and that's it. Indeed, businesses craves stability for sure, but you seem not to see that the Brexit is already a cause of instability for a lot of businesses outside and inside of UK. It still keeps being a source of it, with the sillyness happening in your country right now.
It wouldn't be surprising some companies believe there would be more stability in the EU rather than with a lonely UK. And thus, not needing at all supporting the Brexit idea or staying with the UK. Businesses usually look for big markets, and the EU market is definitely way bigger than the UK one. It's just as simple as that.
With all due respect, ideology has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. This is basic economics. Markets are fixed in many regards. Other places can be as stable as they like, but if you want to buy high aero-engines? Your purchasing areas are limited. If you want to export substantial quantities of food? You can't suddenly relocate your business from selling to the UK to Poland. I could go on for another ten paragraphs, but the point should be made by now.
At the end of the day, there is a market of close to 70 million people here with an income much higher than that in most of the world, most of the world does business here in a sizable capacity, and we possess many exports which cannot be easily replicated. Whilst that remains the case, substantial sums of money will continue to be involved here. It's not a tap that the EU can turn off or reroute, even if it was a singular dedicated entity with central planning (which it isn't). And whilst those substantial sums of money are flowing through here, the people behind them will be pressuring with all their might to ensure that those flows can continue unimpeded. It's always been the case, even in the throes of a world war. That pressure will be hitting the national governments, and their EU representatives, and I believe it will be of sufficient weight to overrule the small groups of influential quangos within the EU. They might have power, but nowhere near sufficient to make or break a matter as complex with as many players as this.
Leastways, that's what I think. I repeat,YMMV, and if I turn out to be wrong, then we jumped ship just in time!
Well eu doesn't really even have to be vindicative. No access to single market freely without free movement. Uk refuses. Uk gets screwed economically. Eu survives better without uk trade than otherway around. Strenght in numbers and geography. For all transports it's still more efficient to trade with nearby countries. How many non eu countries uk has close?
Companies are already reducing presence in uk or preparing for it. Prices going up for common people(who are the ones hurt must. Gg. You voted this yourself). Uk became nice little sinking ship. That's what happens when you follow populists.
Aygo is made in the Czech Republic. The Ka is made in Poland by Fiat, but you probably owned the previous model which was made in Spain.
Now, where do you think all those British-made Nissan Qashqai or Honda Civics are going for the most part?
It is in the UK's best interest that trade flows smoothly, if only because exports to the EU make up 13% of UK GDP and exports to the UK make only 3% of the EU.
The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.
That's a circular argument.
How so? Care to elaborate?
Because the question is why are people in institutes of higher learning more liberal, and your proposal is that it is because people at institutes of higher learning are more liberal.
Nope. I can buy Japanese. I can live without a Mercedes and buy a nice crysler, Lincoln or any other car maker.
That was the argument for the benefits of Brexit that the head of Wetherspoon's gave. It isn't an argument for a benefit so much as an argument that there won't be a disbenefit.
Because the question is why are people in institutes of higher learning more liberal, and your proposal is that it is because people at institutes of higher learning are more liberal.
No, thats not at all what you said.
You said "people who are better educated are more liberal". Not "People at Institutes of Higher Learning are more liberal". The former implies graduates, people who've gone through the system and moved on to a career outside of academia. The latter implies professors and academics, people who chose to "stay" in Higher Learning rather than move on.
The response to this is that the overwhelming bias towards liberalism in academia is a contributing factor to why people who are "better educated" (Graduates) are more liberal. If all your teachers and professors are liberal, and are teaching you liberal ideas and values, you're probably going to become a liberal yourself.
But I've ran out of things to say on this subject...
My reaction to these manifestos is well know: they are dull, bland, insipid, visionless, unimaginative plans, from bank managers acting as though the EU referendum never happened. No grand plan for 21st century Britain, just more managed decline for the British people...
And the June 8th result is a foregone conclusion, and I have nothing more to say about the EU or Scotland...
I think I've reached the end of the line until at least the Autumn.
The response to this is that the overwhelming bias towards liberalism in academia is a contributing factor to why people who are "better educated" (Graduates) are more liberal.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?
I've got a plan to use that sovereignty, but trouble is, I'm not in charge
The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.
Thr current crop hardly inspire the people much.
lib Dems are mild chedder at best.
COrbyn is a dinosaur of the left, last of a dead clan.
May is stable yes, but she not exactly one to rally a Audience.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?
I've got a plan to use that sovereignty, but trouble is, I'm not in charge
The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.
Thr current crop hardly inspire the people much.
lib Dems are mild chedder at best.
COrbyn is a dinosaur of the left, last of a dead clan.
May is stable yes, but she not exactly one to rally a Audience.
We have a leaders' debate tonight on ITV, but no PM arguing her case before the nation. If our press and media weren't so vile and fawning, she wouldn't get away with this.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?
Whats the point in exercising that "sovereignty" if none of the parties represent me and what I want for my country? I want Brexit, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the Tories are doing.
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
Good thing the UK had a veto then, right? Face it, the UK lost no sovereignty which our representatives in the EU and Westminster Parliaments did not give away willingly. The same people who did it before continue to be elected.
The whole "sovereignty" argument falls flat on its face when people continue to vote for the same politicians responsible for the "loss" of that sovereignty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
The 'complete shambles' is actually only such if you view it from the perspective of an idealised utopia. As someone who lived in a third world dictatorial hellhole and thus has a bit of perspective from the complete opposite end, this country runs better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. I don't get power cuts, the government shutting down the internet/press, there's a bare minimum of indoctrination in schools in terms of politics/religion, the people in charge bugger off instead of rigging votes, there's a mostly functional transport infrastructure, I don't have to pay healthcare costs for the most part, the tax burden is not excessive, etcetc.
Just because the people at the top piss everyone about a bit (which happens all the time, everywhere) doesn't really detract from what actually makes this country a good place to live. For most of the population, the UK is only 'a complete shambles' if you spend your time reading sensationalist newspaper headlines instead of actually looking around you. There are problems, sure, but North Korea we ain't.
Because academia is itself very liberal. It tends to create a bit of an echo chamber.
I don't think you've spent a lot of time in academia then. Most would argue with each other until they are blue in the face over relatively minor points. That is after all what they are trained to do - challenge perceptions. However this does need a liberal outlook. If you are in an authoritarian atmosphere where challenge is either ignored or punished (for example take May threatening to cold shoulder companies criticising Brexit) then the science/theology/historical arguments all become stagnant because the any deviation from the norm is discouraged.
What you are missing is that people in academia don't agree on everything but they will debate to try and come to a reasoned conclusion. The essence of liberalism is allowing people to *challenge* the status quo, however academia generally do it with facts and figures gathered from wider sources which can actually appear to be contradictory to an individual person because of the isolated, non-holistic view that person inevitably has.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
The 'complete shambles' is actually only such if you view it from the perspective of an idealised utopia.
Hurrah we've persuaded Ketara that the EU is a utopia!
At the end of the day, there is a market of close to 70 million people here with an income much higher than that in most of the world, most of the world does business here in a sizable capacity, and we possess many exports which cannot be easily replicated. Whilst that remains the case, substantial sums of money will continue to be involved here. It's not a tap that the EU can turn off or reroute, even if it was a singular dedicated entity with central planning (which it isn't). And whilst those substantial sums of money are flowing through here, the people behind them will be pressuring with all their might to ensure that those flows can continue unimpeded. It's always been the case, even in the throes of a world war. That pressure will be hitting the national governments, and their EU representatives, and I believe it will be of sufficient weight to overrule the small groups of influential quangos within the EU. They might have power, but nowhere near sufficient to make or break a matter as complex with as many players as this.
I'd agree that the UKs economy isn't going to collapse overnight. However it could easily shrink over time. In the 60's and 70's our economy was pretty shocking (to the point that there was resistance to us joining the EU because we were indeed the "sick man of Europe"). As a country we reinvented ourselves by joining the EU and becoming part of a greater community. So being outside of the EU we were poor and became richer by joining it (although there are a lot of poor people that were treated like lepers by successive governments). It is not hard to imagine a slide back to being the sick man of Europe. 9 million of that 70 million are recent migrants and that has driven our economy forward. Simply put if we removed the recent migrants then our population would be back to where we were in the 70's. It is more likely that with reduced skilled and unskilled labour, an aging population, a reducing birth rate, and the planned low immigration then we can expect our economy (if we continue on the same course) to shrink. That will lead to the number of skilled workers reducing and over time companies will relocate to more favourable areas. Yes we create the aircraft engines today but that does not mean tomorrow someone can't do it better because they have access to a more highly skilled workforce. The Tories immigration manifesto today will only further encourage this. Higher taxes on companies employing migrants, greater costs for migrants wishing to study here (destroying a significant part of your university education system). This leads to a less employable workforce, less skilled further encouraging companies to leave and so on. There are likely to be some shocks in the short term, but more than likely a slow decline over time. The idea that overall companies will sit around still whilst waiting for UK talent to suddenly appear is limited if you simply consider that we have a declining population if you exclude immigration.
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
If you want the human race to survive past another 500 years then national sovereignty needs to die and be kicked into the gutter. the world needs to move to a more globalised human nation rather than petty kingdoms that eventually will degrade to squabbling over ever decreasing resources.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Finally I do have to laugh at the hypocritical nature of the Tories 'promise' on another Scottish referendum.
A referendum on Scottish independence cannot take place until the Brexit process has played out and it should not take place unless there is public consent for it to happen
Especially given that there public did not consent to having an EU referendum (noting only 35% of the UK voted for the Tory party in 2015). Yet now the "will of the people" has to be asked twice, once whether there should be one, and then an actual vote.
It points to the right wing Tories getting what they wanted and now dictating to the other nation states that they'll only get what the Tories want to give them.
The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.
Right now I think some would inspire the thirsty man to spit the water in there face. I'm no Corbinista but watching the coverage of the Tories manifesto reveal made it hard to keep my food down.
I'd agree that the UKs economy isn't going to collapse overnight. However it could easily shrink over time.
'Easily' isn't the word I'd choose. It certainly could, but let's be honest, in or out of the EU, we're not going to be reduced to Ghana's GDP in the short to mid-term future by any reasonably conceived standard economic process. (I say standard to rule out things like nuclear warfare and God).
In the 60's and 70's our economy was pretty shocking (to the point that there was resistance to us joining the EU because we were indeed the "sick man of Europe"). As a country we reinvented ourselves by joining the EU and becoming part of a greater community. So being outside of the EU we were poor and became richer by joining it (although there are a lot of poor people that were treated like lepers by successive governments).
This is a highly selective account of the past. Thatcher, love her or hate her, is the one who repositioned our economy. I don't think joining the EU as it existed back then 'reinvented' us in any particularly identifiable way, culturally or economically. Joining the EU today is a far chunkier proposal for any country, in terms of legislation and scope, than it was in the 70's.
It is not hard to imagine a slide back to being the sick man of Europe. 9 million of that 70 million are recent migrants and that has driven our economy forward. Simply put if we removed the recent migrants then our population would be back to where we were in the 70's.
You'd need to resurrect half a dozen state supported industries as a drain on the fiscus, amongst several other highly relevant social and economic factors to try and place us back in the 70's to any vaguely accurate degree.
It is more likely that with reduced skilled and unskilled labour, an aging population, a reducing birth rate, and the planned low immigration then we can expect our economy (if we continue on the same course) to shrink. That will lead to the number of skilled workers reducing and over time companies will relocate to more favourable areas. Yes we create the aircraft engines today but that does not mean tomorrow someone can't do it better because they have access to a more highly skilled workforce. The Tories immigration manifesto today will only further encourage this. Higher taxes on companies employing migrants, greater costs for migrants wishing to study here (destroying a significant part of your university education system). This leads to a less employable workforce, less skilled further encouraging companies to leave and so on. There are likely to be some shocks in the short term, but more than likely a slow decline over time. The idea that overall companies will sit around still whilst waiting for UK talent to suddenly appear is limited if you simply consider that we have a declining population if you exclude immigration.
It should be acknowledged however, that the above is vague supposition, and many many other things could and indeed, likely would occur to shift the outcome to a completely different one.
Generally speaking, economies are very interesting things that rarely behave the way you expect them to, and in order to go catastrophically wrong in the manner forecasted above, usually require truly inept mismanaging over a period of some decades.
'Easily' isn't the word I'd choose. It certainly could, but let's be honest, in or out of the EU, we're not going to be reduced to Ghana's GDP in the short to mid-term future by any reasonably conceived standard economic process. (I say standard to rule out things like nuclear warfare and God).
No unlikely, at least in the short term. Ghana's population is also about a third of ours, it's more likely that there economy could grow in the future if conditions were right. On the other hand maybe we should worry about god because if the almighty really does care I'm assuming at this point he is wondering whether he should press the reset button on the computer or "restore to last save" because some malware seems to be taking over the human race.
This is a highly selective account of the past. Thatcher, love her or hate her, is the one who repositioned our economy. I don't think joining the EU as it existed back then 'reinvented' us in any particularly identifiable way, culturally or economically. Joining the EU today is a far chunkier proposal for any country, in terms of legislation and scope, than it was in the 70's.
The latter I agree with, but the former is more open to debate - did Thatcher reposition the economy to take advantage of being in the EU for example; to exploit a niche that was currently filled?
You'd need to resurrect half a dozen state supported industries as a drain on the fiscus, amongst several other highly relevant social and economic factors to try and place us back in the 70's to any vaguely accurate degree.
It's not about getting to where we were (though asking some people about Brexit gives me the impression that's where they want to go). However there is the argument that immigration has allowed the country to exploit the world market because it simply provided a larger work force that allowed greater specialisation. If immigration had been zero then the population now would just be the old baby boomers coming up to retirement and our working population would be greatly diminishing. This trend does not result in a growing economy. You simply can't rely on 75 years old engineers to continue building jet engines and if the number of newly trained people coming through is half those dying/retiring then output will diminish (unless you take extreme action like making minimum working hours be 80 hours a week).
It should be acknowledged however, that the above is vague supposition, and many many other things could and indeed, likely would occur to shift the outcome to a completely different one.
Generally speaking, economies are very interesting things that rarely behave the way you expect them to, and in order to go catastrophically wrong in the manner forecasted above, usually require truly inept mismanaging over a period of some decades.
I'm not really talking about a catastrophic collapse...more a steady decline overall. The point of going back to the 70s is that things have radically changed in 40 years, there is no reason for it not to be able to go back there with the wrong choices.
However when you have an aging population, declining birth rate and with little immigration as proposed by the Tories then your working population will shrink and over time that will affect overall output, those aircraft engine designers will just be fewer (in the UK anyway) and statistics mean that overall the more brains you have working on something the more productive you are likely to be in finding that next ultra efficient engine. The only exception would be if semi-intelligent robots start taking over a lot of manual jobs in the UK. That might keep a strong economy in certain areas but if people thought immigration was keeping wages down (its not the evidence isn't there), robotics has the capability of flooring it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?
I mean things like fiscal union, which is now being pushed heavily now that the biggest opponent the UK is on the way out of the EU.
I mean things like integrated militaries.
I mean things like the UK courts and Parliament being subordinate to European Courts and Parliament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want the human race to survive past another 500 years then national sovereignty needs to die and be kicked into the gutter. the world needs to move to a more globalised human nation rather than petty kingdoms that eventually will degrade to squabbling over ever decreasing resources.
Thats a utopian fallacy and you know it. Humanity will always be divided, but the setting will simply change. We'll simply be fighting over new frontiers, like space. Our species' future is The Expanse, not the Star Trek federation.
A "globalized human nation" will be an authoritarian dystopia.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?
"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?
Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?
I mean things like fiscal union, which is now being pushed heavily now that the biggest opponent the UK is on the way out of the EU.
I mean things like integrated militaries.
I mean things like the UK courts and Parliament being subordinate to European Courts and Parliament.
Fiscal union, well. Even if it eventually ends up happening (which is a good thing) Britain woul very likely get an opt-out, just like the euro, etc.
Integrated militaries: NATO, the Anglo-French Combined Expeditionary Force. It will happen you like it or not. Unless you're the US you can't do power projection on your own budget. The days where you could wage a war with conscripts and a rifle and build thousands of combat aircraft per year are long gone. The UK can barely afford their new aircraft carriers, and that's with the highest defence budget in the EU by far. Either you retreat back or join a group of like-minded nations.
UK is subject to organisations like WTO, ECHR, ICJ, etc. Unless you're North Korea you can't isolate yourself from your neighbours. It's a good thing that there are international courts and organisations to put rogue nations on check. Unless you miss the days of gunboat diplomacy, that is.
The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.
Right now I think some would inspire the thirsty man to spit the water in there face. I'm no Corbinista but watching the coverage of the Tories manifesto reveal made it hard to keep my food down.
The Tory manifesto is just another 5 more years of Blairism - it's writ large in every page. It's remarkable to see a Tory party that is Tory in name only.
Last night's debate went exactly as I thought it would go - as inspiring as soggy cornflakes.
Unlike May, at least they had the guts to turn up, but Farron?
We got the entire Farron family tree
It was feeble, wishy washy, bland, dull, uninspiring, lacklustre...I'm running out of adjectives.
Managed decline. That's all they have to offer the British people. Managed decline.
A penny on income tax? better social care? means tested winter fuel payments?
Whoop tee do...
Nothing on automation. Nothing on Climate Change. Nothing on the massive infastructure projects needed to overhaul this nation and get it fighting fit for the 21st century.
And nothing on a federal system, and a complete overhaul of the political system (elected senate for example) which would save this nation from breaking up.
Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
The Tory Manifesto makes interesting reading. TBH I've only read the heads and summaries, but there is a lucky dip selection of centrist right and left wing policies mixed in.
Worker representation on the boards of companies? That was an EU idea from the mid-to-late 2000s.
Large companies to publish details of executive pay ratio to average worker.
Possible legal support for shareholders to turn down executive pay.
Double the levy on highly-skilled foreign workers. (Folds into the stop immigration policy.)
The Tory manifesto is not anything. It's a monument to failure, an admission that they have no plan, no vision, nothing.
Historically, that is nothing knew. The Tories have always been a road block to progress and prosperity in the UK. The Corn laws, Catholic emancipation, the Ireland problem (blocking Gladstone's home rule bill), voting rights, rolling up the white flag to Hitler in the 1930s, selling us out to the EEC in the 1970s, abandoning the Falklands pre-invasion etc etc
They have forever been a millstone around the neck of the UK.
I feel sorry for the trees that died for that rubbish to be printed.
I feel as though we're stuck in a reality where the EU referendum never happened, and the calendar says May 19th 2007...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
scarletsquig wrote: Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.
I've tried to remain interested and upbeat but this entire election and every manifesto is a complete farce. No one has any credible plans to tackle urgent issues or can present a long term plan beyond flag waving and vote winning. I wish there was a "You all suck" option on the ballot paper.
scarletsquig wrote: Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.
We are already there, and have been for some time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That is right that the current Tory party is Blairite, and we should not have Blairites for our constitutional health, but the alternatives are worse, and sadly we must now have surveillance culture because we let in massed unvetted immigrants to the point that we have large unanglicised minorities ripe for radicalisation, and it would be suicidal not to keep tabs.
scarletsquig wrote: Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.
We are already there, and have been for some time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That is right that the current Tory party is Blairite, and we should not have Blairites for our constitutional health, but the alternatives are worse, and sadly we must now have surveillance culture because we let in massed unvetted immigrants to the point that we have large unanglicised minorities ripe for radicalisation, and it would be suicidal not to keep tabs.
I broadly agree with your point, but still disagree. When I was growing up, the IRA bombing campaign was in full effect. That was a more deadlier threat to the UK than extreme Islamic terrorism has ever been, and yet, our civil liberties were far better back then than they are now.
It's a knee-jerk power grab, and has been so since 1997.
Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.
I broadly agree with your point, but still disagree. When I was growing up, the IRA bombing campaign was in full effect. That was a more deadlier threat to the UK than extreme Islamic terrorism has ever been, and yet, our civil liberties were far better back then than they are now.
It's a knee-jerk power grab, and has been so since 1997.
This is also true, Blair did a power grab and the Tories seeing success in the policy have not released the grip. I have long opposed Blairism because it was totalitarian.
However the IRA were about 300 people at any one time, often less, and we knew who they were and most were watched. The IRA would end up using fresh terrorists for every operation as they knew they couldnt easily udse the guys on the payroll.
However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds. The watch list is approximately ten times the size it was during the Troubles, my guess based on e public data, approx 300 IRA vs approximately 3000 'high threat' individuals, a small proportion of whom would be from contiuency Irish nationalist movements. What is worse it is summised that we certainly have not got tabs on them all, and radicalisation is far easier and more common. There are currently more British passport holders in ISIS in Syria (estimated at 400) than the field strength of the IRA at the height of the Troubles.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
I gave links to the number data above on previous threats on the topic, data is linkable.
Various appeasement policy decisions have been made, by Blair and following governments including a blind eye turned to street Sharia enforcement and an acceptable of some forms of Sharia court. Ethnic tensions are automatically blamed on the far right whether or not they are present.
Yes The UK needs to be watchful, and he moves are necessary, but I do not trust the government not to abuse this power, however even so they are way better than Labour, who set this up specifically to abuse it rather than have fringe benefits of necessary tooling.
Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Title: ''Die Eiskönigin'' (ice queen).
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.
wuestenfux wrote: Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Title: ''Die Eiskönigin'' (ice queen).
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.
Trouble is, everyone who is anyone knows its bluster. Theresa May has three priorities for Brexit, listed roughly in order.
1. Theresa May
2. Theresa May
3. Theresa May
She will be offered faux choices that let her look good and feth us, and despite seeing the trap, she will take them.
I don't buy the argument that we need immigration to support an aging population. Totally unsustainable. In 30 years who is going to pay for all these people? More immigration? Until what? At what point do we have too many people? 100 million? 200 million? 300million? It's not a long term strategy, it just covers the next couple of governments which is all politicians think about. You can't keep expanding the population to pay for ever growing older generations, resources are finite. Worse, energy and food are likely to be resources that will shrink in future due to fossil fuel shortage and climate change.
There was a good piece on Radio 4 pointing out that it is effectively a kind of wealth tax.
However, various problems:
1. Might massively boost the equity release industry, or else destroy it, depending on the precise rules.
2. Might lead to many children leaving their jobs to care for their parents to be paid for doing so and preserve the inheritance.
3. It can't solve the social care crisis in the long term because it's a one-shot. Once the current lucky generation has sold off their valuable homes, their children won't have valuable homes to sell off in their turn.
Of course as with so many political problems that is something the current generation of government will not have to worry about. The can will have been kicked 20 years down the road.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't buy the argument that we need immigration to support an aging population. Totally unsustainable. In 30 years who is going to pay for all these people? More immigration? Until what? At what point do we have too many people? 100 million? 200 million? 300million? It's not a long term strategy, it just covers the next couple of governments which is all politicians think about. You can't keep expanding the population to pay for ever growing older generations, resources are finite. Worse, energy and food are likely to be resources that will shrink in future due to fossil fuel shortage and climate change.
I believe the immigrants are to make up for the shrinking native population. The birthrate is dropping.
That's a bit of a glib response and the point deserves more attention.
For example, as conventional oil fields have started to run down, exploration has extended the reach of oil to new areas, including the ocean and shale oil. At the same time, the use of bio-diesel and alcohol fuel has increased, the use of renewables and other alternative energy, and the construction of more efficient transport, homes and factories.
So it is true in one sense that there is an ultimate limit to the amount of crude oil, but that in itself is not the limit of humanity's ability to produce the energy needed for modern life.
scarletsquig wrote: Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:
And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.
Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".
Well you can see why May wants to get out of the ECJ! Control what the populace by what they can read and you can control what they think. Is this getting back control? If something is deemed 'unhealthy' by the thought police then it will get culled. I expect this topic would be shut down. I'm more and more wondering whether that May's ideal view of personal freedom is closer to China than it is the western worlds.
That's a bit of a glib response and the point deserves more attention.
For example, as conventional oil fields have started to run down, exploration has extended the reach of oil to new areas, including the ocean and shale oil. At the same time, the use of bio-diesel and alcohol fuel has increased, the use of renewables and other alternative energy, and the construction of more efficient transport, homes and factories.
So it is true in one sense that there is an ultimate limit to the amount of crude oil, but that in itself is not the limit of humanity's ability to produce the energy needed for modern life.
The food and water are the greatest risks. As population expands and the more populous areas become ever more demanding our ability to source the same level of resources to everyone will diminish. For the whole population to have the same levels of resources as the western worild would requires several earths. Our reducing resources not only comes from a larger population (expected to peak around 2050) but also a larger fraction of that population modernising. It simply isn't sustainable. This is compounded by things like global warming which will cause low lands to flood and deserts to expand further concentrating the populace. We could expand into space and that would resolve significant resource and space issues but it needs to be a global effort.
Thats a utopian fallacy and you know it. Humanity will always be divided, but the setting will simply change. We'll simply be fighting over new frontiers, like space. Our species' future is The Expanse, not the Star Trek federation.
A "globalized human nation" will be an authoritarian dystopia.
That's not really correct. There are plenty of organisations that work effectively together towards a common goal (take the EU for example, or American states, or global science collaborations). There's a difference between having conflict between human beings individually versus a global human system with overall aims and objectives. If we get into space there will be no reason to fight over resources. I don't think you realise just how vast space actually is; if we got to the point that we were colonising the galaxy then we could each have an earth sized planet to ourselves (and more than likely whole solar systems). Yes there might still be pirating, murder and so on but that doesn't prevent a global initiative from being enacted.
welshhoppo wrote: America really doesn't help with the food and water issues.
I agree that space is probably the only option. The sooner we are able to tow asteroids and harvest them for metals the better.
Just one asteroid from the asteroid belt (about four miles wide if I rememeber) has more iron than we have ever used in the history of mankind.
Astaroid mining is if we could, metals and minerals could br minded by the many thousand of tons with ease.
Just need some kind of space capable aircraft, shuttles and a new space race
However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds.
Really? On what basis are you making this claim? We've already had one politics thread locked do you mind not trying to get another one locked?
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
I see... So there are differing of levels terrorism now is there?
Yes there most certainly is.
You have terrorists who want a specific goal vs terrorists who just want you dead. You can negotiate with the former and form peace, the latter cannot be satisfied because you are still breathing,
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds.
Really? On what basis are you making this claim? We've already had one politics thread locked do you mind not trying to get another one locked?
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
I see... So there are differing of levels terrorism now is there?
Yes there most certainly is.
You have terrorists who want a specific goal vs terrorists who just want you dead. You can negotiate with the former and form peace, the latter cannot be satisfied because you are still breathing,
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
If you think terrorism is about dogma you are woefully mistaken.
I am basing it on reality Whirlwind. You should try some.
Lee Rigby didnt fall down and bump his head, he had it cut off in broad daylight on a street after being runover by two Islamic fanatics.
The two people caught trying to blow up Glasgow airport were Islamic doctors, showing that even the intelligentsia can be radicalised into murderous scum.
UK based terrorists experimented with new techniques for mass destruction. Good example being the Liquid Bomb plot from 2005.
You are confusing individual actions against a country as a reason to lambast a population. There are plenty of good and bad people from all sides. I can easily point to Christian terrorist groups, sikh terrorist groups and so on. Conversely there are 10's to 100s of thousands of doctors from the same group you seem to revile that save children, pensioners and any one else that needs that aid. You have been polarised and not seeing that the UK populace is better by being diverse and provides us with a wider political outlook on the world - you see the reports on the bad events, but fail to recognise that the vast majority of events are actually good and supportive of society, yet because these are not reported they get ignored. There is no denying there are bad people in the world (you could argue ISIS is just a another form of fascism. By being so hostile to a certain group of people and closed off from even considering that for the vast majority they simply believe something different and that being force fed trying to as you quoted being 'anglified' the only thing you are likely to do is force people into groups that are more closed and protective. The same trap is what the Tory party are falling into and is exactly what terrorists want, divide and conquer. Using the same basis that you use I could point to Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville and state that all white males are paedophiles and hence should be shunned. But it is obviously nonsense.
You have terrorists who will murder with bombs and guns vs those who will use any means. The former are scum, but for several reasons they will not stoop to mass destruction, though most motives revolve around political self limitation rather than actual ethics. those who are pursuing WMD have few if any moral qualms, even by terrorist standards. It also is helpful to recognise that those willing to use tools of genocide are those who also want to eliminate the people base not in line with their own dogmas.
I'm actually quite flabbergasted that anyone could try and justify that one form of terrorism is 'better' than another.
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
They could also be reasoned and negotiated with. They had rational political objectives that could be achieved peacefully once both sides were willing (Good Friday agreement).
ISIS on the other hand have irrational, religious objectives. The establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across national boundaries. Extermination of all infidels, including the wrong type of Muslims. Bringing about the apocalypse. You can't negotiate with someone who's entire ethos is "Convert or die".
Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.
They could also be reasoned and negotiated with. They had rational political objectives that could be achieved peacefully once both sides were willing (Good Friday agreement).
ISIS on the other hand have irrational, religious objectives. The establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across national boundaries. Extermination of all infidels, including the wrong type of Muslims. Bringing about the apocalypse. You can't negotiate with someone who's entire ethos is "Convert or die".
You have been polarised and not seeing that the UK populace is better by being diverse and provides us with a wider political outlook on the world
The 'diversity is good' propaganda works, it is easily swallowed.
Diversity, as seen in the UK has many problems due to selective empowerment and selective culpability.
- you see the reports on the bad events, but fail to recognise that the vast majority of events are actually good and supportive of society, yet because these are not reported they get ignored.
If only that were true.
We got pro-diversity propaganda on pretty much a constant basis.
However the nasty stuff like Trojan horse schools and turning a blind eye to large scale paedophile gangs gets whitewashed.
It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
We've had nothing. Absolutely nothing...
I think we need to ensure that employment opportunities are given to local people, and for the record race has no bearing on this. However jobs are often advertised overseas, and there is a culture of only hiring people from Eastern Europe on the bigoted opinion that British workers are lazy.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
A question is whether you have the people to get all your jobs done. Well, I'm pinpointing to lower paid jobs often done by people from abroad and not by native people.
In Germany the answer is certainly NO. It was answered in the 1960s when the first foreign workers came in from Italy, Turkey, and whatnot.
Admittedly, a lot of my typical search results have wandered off due to the malware incident being forefront in the news.
But in short, yeah, IT and 'cyber' is a MAJOR, MAJOR growing market in the UK right and is being championed by MPs, politicians, businesses and various Government investment organisations.
You got family or kids looking for jobs? Get them learning python or 'scratch' (if they're kids). That's the way to go.
Admittedly, a lot of my typical search results have wandered off due to the malware incident being forefront in the news.
But in short, yeah, IT and 'cyber' is a MAJOR, MAJOR growing market in the UK right and is being championed by MPs, politicians, businesses and various Government investment organisations.
You got family or kids looking for jobs? Get them learning python or 'scratch' (if they're kids). That's the way to go.
Thanks for taking the time to post all that
None the less, as much as we should applaud a few individual MPs taking up the baton, until I see Corbyn, Farron and May talking about it, and until I see it in a manifesto, then I remain unconvinced that Westminster is taking the issue seriously and giving it the respect it deserves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's a question not just for British politics, but western politics:
Given that robots, automation, and AI is only going to factor more and more into society with each passing year, do we need increased immigration to support an ageing population?
Robots might end up doing a lot of the jobs...
I've nothing against immigration, I think it's silly to think you can stop it in this highly globalized world, but if robots start shrinking the labour force, we might see a drop in immigration.
It also comes back to my grand plan: is there a politician out there who is saying, let's start a robot revolution in Britain? For example, turn Milton Keynes into Britain's robot HQ with massive investment in infrastructure and R and D etc etc
We've had nothing. Absolutely nothing...
I think we need to ensure that employment opportunities are given to local people, and for the record race has no bearing on this. However jobs are often advertised overseas, and there is a culture of only hiring people from Eastern Europe on the bigoted opinion that British workers are lazy.
I am against immigration policy because it exasperates a later problem, every immigrant worker is yet another person entering the UK and aging, it kicks our demographic problem down the road rather than solving it, also the UK is 'full', we dont have the land availability or housing for what we do have.
Local jobs for local people sounds like a BNP manifesto!
Remember how much trouble Gordon Brown got into for talking about British jobs for British people? Apart from UKIP, and they're going down like the Titanic, no mainstream party will run on that kind of platform.
Even when we leave the EU, the immigration problem will still be around. If for example, we sign a trade deal with India, they will want more Indian students in the UK in return.
We should welcome more Indian students for the following reasons:
1. The whole point of getting out of the EU was to be able to make deals with places like India.
2. International students contribute a massive amount of money to UK higher education.
3. The UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education helps maintain the UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education. It's a virtuous circle, that can easily turn into a vicious spiral.
4. The UK's vibrant universities generate a huge spin-off in research and development.
5. The UK gets a lot of soft power from educating foreigners and its standing in world academic and research rankings.
6. We're going to end up with a lot fewer EU students and we need to make up those numbers somehow.
Kilkrazy wrote: We should welcome more Indian students for the following reasons:
1. The whole point of getting out of the EU was to be able to make deals with places like India.
2. International students contribute a massive amount of money to UK higher education.
3. The UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education helps maintain the UK as a world-renowned centre of excellence in higher education. It's a virtuous circle, that can easily turn into a vicious spiral.
4. The UK's vibrant universities generate a huge spin-off in research and development.
5. The UK gets a lot of soft power from educating foreigners and its standing in world academic and research rankings.
6. We're going to end up with a lot fewer EU students and we need to make up those numbers somehow.
I actually agree. The idea of more Indian students does not worry me in the slightest. Students aren't the real problem with mass immigration.
Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
That would be genuinely cool. Id pay good money to see a lifesize replica roman fort. Maybe a mile castle to and such.
Be genuinely interesting.
Remember how much trouble Gordon Brown got into for talking about British jobs for British people?
Actually Gordon Brown got in trouble for the opposite, there was a story about a construction project the government backed tat employeed 2000 new workers, and advertised only in the Polish press.
Even when we leave the EU, the immigration problem will still be around. If for example, we sign a trade deal with India, they will want more Indian students in the UK in return.
Letting in foreign students is not a problem, if they leave they pay in by going to university here, using foreign funding, if they stay they add to skilled workforce.
No, but the problems have been exasperated by short term policy decision making, and finger pointing at anyone who says we have an immigration problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rebuilding parts of Hadrian's wall as a tourist attraction is not a bad idea actually. Imagine a lifesize Roman Fort and half a kilometre stretch of reconstructed Roman wall. It'd make for a pretty cool Museum, a little like Jorvik.
Rebuild the wall, and get the Scots to pay for it?
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
A lot of the so-called problem is people not liking immigration because it's change. A lot of the real problems turn out to be temporary, solvable or just false.
Immediate and long term housing crisis, employment opportunities redirected, strains on healthcare and education due to the population surge and tensions between different cultural groups primarily.
Most positive immigration is either a conscience salve to allow refugees into the UK, or respond to a required skill shortage.
However the former has problems with 'Trojan horse' immigration, the latter because it defers rather than solves problems. Instead of importing skilled people we need to educate the ones we have got properly, deal with rising tuition costs and failing state education.
The UK has potential for an excellent education system, but it is inaccessible to most and large sections are dogmatised.
People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
Only because you're wilfully ignorant.
A lot of the so-called problem is people not liking immigration because it's change. A lot of the real problems turn out to be temporary, solvable or just false.
But these problems are NOT being solved, are they?
There also are plusses to immigration.
Well no gak. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is calling for immigration to be shut down entirely and for the borders to be closed, they're arguing for it to be controlled. But there are also severe problems with accepting more immigration than we can realistically absorb, problems which you just shrug your shoulders at.
You're being wilfully obtuse. You seriously cannot see any problems with mass immigration? What about the migrant camps in Calais? What about the huge un-integrated communities in Paris and elsewhere in France and Belgium that are becoming hotbeds of radicalisation? What about the mass rapes and sexual assaults across Germany? What about the riots, grenade attacks and no go areas in Sweden? What about the migrants and people smuggling across the Mediterranean? What about the high unemployment amongst immigrants? (which you yourself mentioned a couple weeks ago).
Immigration needs to be slow and carefully managed to ensure that immigrants can be properly integrated, housed, educated and employed, without causing excessive strain on housing, education, healthcare, transport or causing resentment among the native populations who often find themselves becoming an ethnic minority in the towns and neighbourhoods they've lived in for their entire lives..
Instead what we have now is mass movements of people into Europe on a scale not seen for centuries, Do you really think the current level of immigration into Europe is sustainable? That we can realistically absorb and integrate such huge numbers of people into European communities without them settling into marginalized ethnic ghettos, languishing in unemployment, lack of opportunities and education? Without ethnic tensions deteriorating and descending into social unrest and violence?
People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
Only because you're wilfully ignorant.
Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.
There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.
Where in this thread are people denying that there are problems with immigration? Taking issue with the fact that you repeatedly complain about things that aren't actually true is not denying that there are problems, it's trying to keep the discussion focussed on the actual problems.
People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
Only because you're wilfully ignorant.
Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.
I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.
People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
Only because you're wilfully ignorant.
Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.
You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.
The opposite is actually true, but there is a head in sand denial culture in Sweden, just like there was under New Labour in the UK. Fingers are pointed at anyone who dares say there is a problem.
Let us look at the argument being posted:
So you either have to flatly agree with the zeitgeist of opinion here presented by Almighty Walrus (though it is not his fault , or you are not 'intersted' in 'reasoned discussion'.
This about sums up the brainwashing and heavy handedness endemic to political correctness.
i.e "discussion" is prohibited unless you agree a priori with the arguments presented.
What follows is naturally not reasoned discussion of any kind, but an ideological soundboard.
Horrible thing is, people don't realise they are being channeled into indoctrination.
Essentially the arguments Shadow Captain Edithae's forwards are indistinguishable from heresy in Sweden, they are wrong by cultural dictat rather than opposed by logic.
People like you putting Immigration on a pedestal because "muh diversity!" and denouncing any and all criticism of uncontrolled mass immigration as racist, which obstructs any attempts to deal with the drawbacks of mass immigration.
I don't see that "mass" immigration has any useful definition. It seems to mean "more than I like".
Only because you're wilfully ignorant.
Define "mass immigration" for us in the ignorant masses then.
Immigration plus lots of it.
Simple.
Ignoring the rest of your post, this is a start. What level of immigration constitutes "mass" immigration? Where do we draw the limit? What distinguishes "mass" immigration from just immigration other than an arbitrary number?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.
Says who? Swedish Police chiefs? I'm sure they're entirely trustworthy, with no motive whatsoever to lie about the problems in their areas of jurisdiction.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There are no "no go" areas in Sweden, we've been over this repeatedly. You're either lying or not interested in having a reasoned discussion on the subject.
Says who? Swedish Police chiefs? I'm sure they're entirely trustworthy, with no motive whatsoever to lie about the problems in their areas of jurisdiction.
Who is saying there is? Further, you're now making the assertion that Swedish police is lying about their own official classification of areas. Do you have any evidence for this accusation?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.
I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, wilfully ignorant. When confronted with the problems of mass immigration, you just shrug your shoulders and laugh.
I asked for a definition of what "mass immigration" is and you provided a non-answer. You're not arguing in good faith. There isn't going to be any gainful discussion on the problems of mass immigration if you can't even formulate what mass immigration is in the first place.
A glib question begets a glib response.
You're calling people wilfully ignorant and then refusing to actually explain your argument when people ask you to. I can't read your mind, so I need you to explain how you define "mass immigration". Would you prefer I made up strawmen instead?
EDIT: I'll back off before another thread gets locked due to us having the same circular debate we've had seventyfive billion times already.
Wise of you, because you know you cannot answer it.
Pride prevents you from accepting your position is wrong, and doctrine prevents you from engaging in discussion because the conditioning in Sweden at the moment limits you to pointing fingers at critics or issuing blank denials.
It is a mental trap, and it isn't your fault. Like with New Labour, this form of conditioning generates a powerbase which is attractive to centralised government.
What level of immigration constitutes "mass" immigration? Where do we draw the limit? What distinguishes "mass" immigration from just immigration other than an arbitrary number?
Daft questions when you think about it. You are asking what is 'a lot', the answer varies and leaves wriggle room for dishonest denial.
This is used a lot in Sweden, particularly to deny the evidence for endemic rape culture. Germany is also now beginning to see this.
Is this just a semantic to avoid having to look at the issue.
So lets conceptualise the mass immigration into Europe at this time, then at least the infographic can answer your question. Hopefully you can accept the answer and see the immigration into Europe is problem level mass immigration:
If everyone could stop trying to "prove" that they are superior by insisting that the other side of an argument is indoctrinated, or whatever buzzword of the week you decide to go with, that'd be great.
And while that may sound like a suggestion, be assured that it is not. Any more talking down to other users will be dealt with, harshly, and you don't want to start UK politics down the path to the same state that US politics is in.
Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.
People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.
The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.
welshhoppo wrote: Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.
People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.
The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.
How is how individual countries letting people pass through their country an issue of the EU, that's going to happen regardless.
Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
welshhoppo wrote: Now that map does actually show a massive issue with the EU.
People should be registering for asylum in the first county that they enter. There should not be that many people applying for Asylum on a country which isn't at the EUs border.
The camps at Calais are entirely France's fault. Because they know they want to come to the UK as it is apparently some land of milk and honey, so they let them go through it.
How is how individual countries letting people pass through their country an issue of the EU, that's going to happen regardless.
Because the EU had the power to prevent this from happening, but couldn't do it.
Think about it, use EU money to set up asylum camps in Italy and Greece so they don't have to pay for it. Then have the countries of Europe to agree to take X amount of refugees per X population (so it's fair). And them randomly allocate refugees to countries. Boom. Suddenly the problem isn't so bad and it takes the pressure off Greece and Italy to do something about the people that wash up on their shores.
You could even fund vessels to transport people across the med so they don't die on the way over or lose everything to gang lords who own fishing ships.
But no, instead they shoved their fingers in their ears and closed their eyes and then complain when the fan is covered in poop.
How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.
Then let the, not take them, and have everyone in the EU know that Hungary refused to help the crisis and let the bad press do its work back home.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How do you "have someone agree"? How could the EU make nations agree without opening up themselves for sovereignty-related complaints? Orban et. al. in Hungary already used "the EU is violating or sovereignty and they'll force us to take refugees!" in the election campaigns there.
Then let the, not take them, and have everyone in the EU know that Hungary refused to help the crisis and let the bad press do its work back home.
Immigration will always be a sticking point in politics, but you can't ignore it was one of the major factors in the lead up to Brexit. It remains extremely unlikely the Conservatives will ever reach their desired target until freedom of movement becomes invalid after concluding the Brexit deal/no deal. I for one believe immigration should be tightly controlled in reflexion to the economy and what positions are needed. The problem with mass migration is that it is primarily unskilled migration. We will be needing more skilled labour such as engineers rather than field workers as time goes on. We are luckier than most European countries for actually having a physical body of water between us rather than a land border, the central countries will never be able to control to control their immigration even if they helped each other. The whole Asylum seeker-jump on the band wagon economic migrant crisis proved how woefully inadequate the EU was/n't prepared to stop it. As much as they can try and register people to stay in one place they will never truly know who or how many people they have. Going back to us, at some point we will reach saturation in my opinion in which the unskilled jobs are either being replaced by machines or that the industry does not require more bodies, this will be the true end and shift in immigration.
Now straying back to topic (I haven't read pages back), I do like some of what the Labour Party are proposing. Nationalisation of key infrastructure such as water which is vital to life is common sense and I fully support it, however the sheer list of what they want to bring back doesn't balance the books even with tax increases with businesses and the rich. I think it would be highly likely that most taxes would increase. It will be a blue moon when VAT and fuel duty go down! I do not like Corbyn, he seems to wishy washy to me, trying to hold Labour roots but follow a flow of what will be popular. I think the Labour Party would be a bad choice for the UK's future negotiations with the EU. The party would backtrack and make too many concessions to be outside of the EU but still within.
As for the other parties well UKIP are consigned to the history books, the Green Party is still on the fringe and the Loony Democrat Party are just there to make things worse with stupid ideas such as legalising cannabis and causing eternal havoc with a second referendum because if you don't agree with the result do it again until you get the outcome you want!
I am sorry if this sounds like a rant but a lot of the options in the election just leave a bad taste in my mouth. Labour offers a good deal of change that I agree with, but at the end of the day I think the current government still offer the most conclusive option to the end of Brexit. After that, then have some internal change not the other way around. I will vote Conservative this time, but after that I will vote for some change in the next general election.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Today is the last day to register to vote. I hope my fellow dakka members are all signed up and ready to go.
In surprising news, Labour have cut the Tories lead in the polls to single figures
Corbyn is out on the streets with a popular message: take back the trains, scrap tuition fees etc etc
May is in secret locations with a hand picked audience, and the Tory plans for social care are all over the shop.
Interesting times.
I am not so surprised, actually, having listened to Radio 4. It seems that people don't take much notice of the manifesto, they pick up on a few strong messages and make a decision based on gut instict for 'leadership' and so on.
Like him or not, Corbyn has been out there projecting a few strong messages like you said, while May has been hiding in a bunker in the assumption that the Tories just need to point their fingers and laugh at Labour.
However, the new Social Care plan has gone down in Middle Britain like a lead balloon. Apparently 90% of people in the UK who own their own home have an asset worth over £100,000. May is now rolling back on that plan -- great strong and stable leadership!. Meanwhile the rest of the Tory manifesto is full of lots of policies (which isn't a strong message) and short of actual costings, which makes it difficult to accuse Labour of not having done their sums because they obviously have and the Tories obviously haven't.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Today is the last day to register to vote. I hope my fellow dakka members are all signed up and ready to go.
In surprising news, Labour have cut the Tories lead in the polls to single figures
Corbyn is out on the streets with a popular message: take back the trains, scrap tuition fees etc etc
May is in secret locations with a hand picked audience, and the Tory plans for social care are all over the shop.
Interesting times.
I am not so surprised, actually, having listened to Radio 4. It seems that people don't take much notice of the manifesto, they pick up on a few strong messages and make a decision based on gut instict for 'leadership' and so on.
Like him or not, Corbyn has been out there projecting a few strong messages like you said, while May has been hiding in a bunker in the assumption that the Tories just need to point their fingers and laugh at Labour.
However, the new Social Care plan has gone down in Middle Britain like a lead balloon. Apparently 90% of people in the UK who own their own home have an asset worth over £100,000. May is now rolling back on that plan -- great strong and stable leadership!. Meanwhile the rest of the Tory manifesto is full of lots of policies (which isn't a strong message) and short of actual costings, which makes it difficult to accuse Labour of not having done their sums because they obviously have and the Tories obviously haven't.
As I've said to you before, it's always amusing to see the party that gave us Black Wednesday accuse Labour of not getting their sums right, whilst failing to provide any of their own.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Today is the last day to register to vote. I hope my fellow dakka members are all signed up and ready to go.
In surprising news, Labour have cut the Tories lead in the polls to single figures
Corbyn is out on the streets with a popular message: take back the trains, scrap tuition fees etc etc
May is in secret locations with a hand picked audience, and the Tory plans for social care are all over the shop.
Interesting times.
Its a shame that Labour's plans will just throw everything into even more debt for everyone.
Where is the money for the trains and student fees going to come from?
In the last few years, the cost of borrowing for the government has been at record lows due to the low interest rate. A perfect time to borrow to fund major infrastructure projects you would think.
Osborne, however, saw things differently, which is why we're still in a mess.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
Oh sure, withdraw the invitation and let Eastern Europe suffer the consequences of her foolish mistake? Feth that, its too late to withdraw the invitation.
The European Commission's approach to transparency in the Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom
The Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom are unique and differ from any other negotiation conducted by the European Union to date. Given their unprecedented nature, the European Commission has decided to adopt a tailor-made approach to transparency.
The Commission, as European Union negotiator, will ensure a maximum level of transparency during the whole negotiating process.
Commission negotiating documents which are shared with EU Member States, the European Council, the European Parliament, the Council, national parliaments, and the United Kingdom will be released to the public.
Negotiating documents on Article 50
The negotiating documents mentioned above include, but are not limited to:
agendas for negotiating rounds
EU position papers
non-papers
EU text proposals
This transparency policy will be regularly reviewed to ensure that it fulfils its objective and does not negatively impact the integrity of the negotiations. In implementing this policy, the Union negotiator will act within the limits of EU law and respect the Commission's legal obligations with regard to protection of information as defined in art 4, paragraph 1 of Regulation n° 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European parliament, Council and Commission documents.
On a serious note, I don't expect for a minute that Middle England marginals will ever elect a Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell government, but this election could be a lot closer than people think.
Yes, I've been predicting a Conservative landslide for months, but when the facts change, I change my opinion, as somebody once said. Now, I think it will be a lot closer, seeing as Corbyn is getting balanced media coverage.
Updated DINLT prediction: Conservative win, with say, 30 seat majority and not the 100+ I originally predicted.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
Oh sure, withdraw the invitation and let Eastern Europe suffer the consequences of her foolish mistake? Feth that, its too late to withdraw the invitation.
She should have never made this invitation. Now the route from Turkey to Europe through Greece is mainly closed. The shelters/camps built in Germany for the refugees have been cleared during the last months.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
Oh sure, withdraw the invitation and let Eastern Europe suffer the consequences of her foolish mistake? Feth that, its too late to withdraw the invitation.
She should have never made this invitation. Now the route from Turkey to Europe through Greece is mainly closed. The shelters/camps built in Germany for the refugees have been cleared during the last months.
Right, but she did, the damage is done and Germany should pay the consequences.
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
Oh sure, withdraw the invitation and let Eastern Europe suffer the consequences of her foolish mistake? Feth that, its too late to withdraw the invitation.
She should have never made this invitation. Now the route from Turkey to Europe through Greece is mainly closed. The shelters/camps built in Germany for the refugees have been cleared during the last months.
Right, but she did, the damage is done and Germany should pay the consequences.
Germany already pays for it. Most of the Germans were not happy with Merkel's decision.
Sentinel1 wrote: Immigration will always be a sticking point in politics, but you can't ignore it was one of the major factors in the lead up to Brexit. It remains extremely unlikely the Conservatives will ever reach their desired target until freedom of movement becomes invalid after concluding the Brexit deal/no deal. I for one believe immigration should be tightly controlled in reflexion to the economy and what positions are needed. The problem with mass migration is that it is primarily unskilled migration. We will be needing more skilled labour such as engineers rather than field workers as time goes on. We are luckier than most European countries for actually having a physical body of water between us rather than a land border, the central countries will never be able to control to control their immigration even if they helped each other. The whole Asylum seeker-jump on the band wagon economic migrant crisis proved how woefully inadequate the EU was/n't prepared to stop it. As much as they can try and register people to stay in one place they will never truly know who or how many people they have. Going back to us, at some point we will reach saturation in my opinion in which the unskilled jobs are either being replaced by machines or that the industry does not require more bodies, this will be the true end and shift in immigration.
That's simply not true. There are more and more reports that we do not have the enough low skilled workers to keep things ticking along. It's getting especially bad in the farming sector which relies on seasonal workers that the UK populace simply isn't willing to do overall. Unless you start press ganging students into doing these jobs there is a risk that at this low skill level we'll just pull the rug from under ourselves in some desperate bid to reduce immigration for *insert reason*. It is also nonsense to think that we can encourage only 'skilled' workers from other countries and then expect them not to have the comforts of home such as family, food specialities and so on. It's as if there is an expectation that they should just be consumed by the *great British ideals* (yes sarcasm) and then do what we need them to do to keep the country *great*. Why would people leave for another country when they can't take friends and family with them, expect a hostile reception and are effectively being used by the country until at some point they are deemed as no longer being required? Bizarrely of course should such trained and selected people actually come to the country then it discourages training of the UK populace because you are selecting by those already trained. On the other hand an open market allows the free flow of people and will naturally over time come to an equilibrium. With more people in the country you can support larger numbers of niche high tech businesses that would otherwise either not find the business or the employees to support it.
The ironic thing about all this of course is that we are all immigrants if you look back a couple of thousand years. As a species we migrated out of Africa and there have been several waves of migration over time. That we are the nation we are today is because of migration, not because of a lack of it. What about America, where was that 500 years ago, yet through sustained migration it is now the most powerful nation on the Earth. The one simplistically similar thing however is that there has always been resistance to migration, always fear of the 'alien' (which is an evolved trait); yet the desire to keep things the same never happens and the migration continues unabated. In reality as climate change kicks in migration is going to become greater as populaces move from larger regions that are uninhabitable - so it's going to have to be something people will have to get use to over the next couple of hundred years (assuming we don't nuke ourselves in the meantime).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm probably getting carried away, but now he's free from the Commons and the Blairites, Corbyn actually looks like he's enjoying himself.
More public events, cracking jokes, at ease - he seems to be going down fighting.
May on the other hand looks scared stiff and increasingly relying on the right-wing media to shield her.
If we had a better and more balanced media, Corbyn would probably have a decent chance of victory in June, and I never thought I'd say that.
It's probably why May shielded herself away from the public and media because she was fearful of being exposed and hoped that the negative press on Corbyn would win here the victory. The problem is that at some point she did have to start coming out with policies and be exposed to the type of politician she is.
Still it's funny watching May go into car crash mode. That's two major policies (NI on small businesses and this) that are perceived to be uturns making her mantra of "strong and stable" look increasing unrealistic (and if she take this approach to Brexit well it isn't going to go well).
However, the new Social Care plan has gone down in Middle Britain like a lead balloon. Apparently 90% of people in the UK who own their own home have an asset worth over £100,000. May is now rolling back on that plan -- great strong and stable leadership!. Meanwhile the rest of the Tory manifesto is full of lots of policies (which isn't a strong message) and short of actual costings, which makes it difficult to accuse Labour of not having done their sums because they obviously have and the Tories obviously haven't.
Of course she hasn't really done a uturn on it yet. They have just said they will include a cap as an item in the consultation. The thing is the Tories in the last two governments have completely ignored a lot of consultations and just done what they wanted anyway. My suspicion is that this is a way to try and push back the issue until after they get elected and then implement it anyway.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A pro-Statist, pro surveillance authoritarian right winger, and an old Labour Marxist. What wonderful choices we have.
Re-nationalising the trains and taking on the spivs and speculators, seems to be quite popular with the British public.
At any rate, it's a contest now, and not a coronation, which is a good thing for our democracy.
Anyone who has travelled by our wonderful 20 years privatised railways will agree. Looking at going to Durham with my daughter, for her to see the university in case she might apply. Return tickets are over £149 each for Super Advance, which is off peak with no flexibility, in second class, and there's actually only one train that could get us there.
If she got in, tuition is over £9,000 a year.
If my parents need social care, there goes the inheritance that might have paid for the university fees.
You can see why my wife and I actually are thinking Labour's got a better manifesto than the Tories. I can't be the only one. There are plenty of parents with more children than me.
The best thing is, the Social Care thing apparently was Theresa May's idea, which she shoved into the manifesto at the last minute without consulting anyone.
Unions have piped up that the sale to a new entrant – this time, state-backed Italian firm Trenitalia – is proof that the government is standing by and letting foreign companies take over Britain's railways instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and bringing the network back under public ownership.
In fact, according to the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, 70 per cent of Britain's railways are now under foreign ownership to some degree.
Devil in the detail
On the face of it, overseas operators do play a major part in running the UK's railways.
But because many overseas transport firms are involved through joint venture agreements with UK companies, it isn't quite as simple as saying there is a growing dominance by firms outside of the UK.
Perhaps we should start calling it repatriation of the railways rather than nationalisation since about three quarters of the railways are already owned by government, just not ours.
George Spiggott wrote: Perhaps we should start calling it repatriation of the railways rather than nationalisation since about three quarters of the railways are already owned by government, just not ours.
Same thing for the power companies.
We have this twilight zone situation where British rail passengers are bank rolling cheaper fares for passengers in other countries.
John Major has a lot to answer for
Up here in Scotland, the Dutch government runs Scotrail. Badly, I may add.
In England, you guys have German, Italian, Hong Kong, running the show...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A pro-Statist, pro surveillance authoritarian right winger, and an old Labour Marxist. What wonderful choices we have.
Re-nationalising the trains and taking on the spivs and speculators, seems to be quite popular with the British public.
At any rate, it's a contest now, and not a coronation, which is a good thing for our democracy.
Anyone who has travelled by our wonderful 20 years privatised railways will agree. Looking at going to Durham with my daughter, for her to see the university in case she might apply. Return tickets are over £149 each for Super Advance, which is off peak with no flexibility, in second class, and there's actually only one train that could get us there.
If she got in, tuition is over £9,000 a year.
If my parents need social care, there goes the inheritance that might have paid for the university fees.
You can see why my wife and I actually are thinking Labour's got a better manifesto than the Tories. I can't be the only one. There are plenty of parents with more children than me.
The best thing is, the Social Care thing apparently was Theresa May's idea, which she shoved into the manifesto at the last minute without consulting anyone.
This is what happens when the Tories think they can't be beaten. They always over reach themselves.
As for trains, the horror stories I could tell you. Imagine being stuck on a Virgin train at the height of summer. Imagine that train has broken down and the air conditioning is not working...
konst80hummel wrote: Indeed that was the agreement from the days of Schengen. And it held (creating a completely different beast in the process)until the numbers spiked with the refugee crisis. However nor Greece, nor Italy not anyone country on it 'sown can provide shelter in humanitarian conditions for the flood of people that came with the Syrian refugee status. And when we asked for support the central Europe raised barbed wire fence and set the army to watch the borders.
Put them all on a flight to Germany. Merkel invited them after all.
This invitation no longer exists. This is what Merkel has pointed out.
Oh sure, withdraw the invitation and let Eastern Europe suffer the consequences of her foolish mistake? Feth that, its too late to withdraw the invitation.
She should have never made this invitation. Now the route from Turkey to Europe through Greece is mainly closed. The shelters/camps built in Germany for the refugees have been cleared during the last months.
Right, but she did, the damage is done and Germany should pay the consequences.
Has Britain paid for the 2004 and 2007 EU expansions?
The answer is no. Blair did, with his (political) head.
It's Tory ideology to ensure a minimal state ownership. However for some areas, where there is significant lack of competition (such as rail and energy) there is a big argument that by handing it over to private companies it just favours price gouging of the public over a decent public service.
That's because it's pretty hard to have competitions over trains, as the majority of them share track and not many people seem to be building new tracks for whatever reason.
I've always figured that the important things, health, education, transport, water and electric possibly should be nationalised, but then there is nothing stopping the government from screwing you over and you're stuck without a second option.
So, seven million years ago, when this election was called, if someone had written "X is having a complete nightmare of a campaign, and appears to be losing all control. Their uncosted promises are haunting them and they've already been forced to change their manifesto commitments. Y on the other hand appears to be campaigning with great confidence, and has really gained momentum" would YOU have guessed X and Y correctly?
George Spiggott wrote: Perhaps we should start calling it repatriation of the railways rather than nationalisation since about three quarters of the railways are already owned by government, just not ours.
Same thing for the power companies.
... ...
As for trains, the horror stories I could tell you. Imagine being stuck on a Virgin train at the height of summer. Imagine that train has broken down and the air conditioning is not working...
I don't need to imagine that, because it happened to me and the family back in the early 2000s. What was good was that the train crew had prepared by not loading water. If it had gone on much longer, there would have been some medical repercussions.
Virgin have improved a lot since those dark days, but Great Western seem as bad as ever.
You guys might be on to something with renationalisation. Here in Northern Ireland our train and bus services are state owned and they're great. It's run by a public company called Translink, which is devided into Ulsterbus, N.I railways and Metro (Belfast city bus services). No complaints from me. Well ok, they're not perfect but they're better than your ones!
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Future War Cultist wrote: You guys might be on to something with renationalisation. Here in Northern Ireland our train and bus services are state owned and they're great. It's run by a public company called Translink, which is devided into Ulsterbus, N.I railways and Metro (Belfast city bus services). No complaints from me. Well ok, they're not perfect but they're better than your ones!
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
We had nationalisation, and it wasn't perfect, and privatization was supposed to be the magic bullet, but 20 years later, it has clearly failed. We may as well take back our railways and put an end to this nonsense of British rail passengers subsidising cheaper fares in other nations.
George Spiggott wrote: Perhaps we should start calling it repatriation of the railways rather than nationalisation since about three quarters of the railways are already owned by government, just not ours.
Same thing for the power companies.
... ...
As for trains, the horror stories I could tell you. Imagine being stuck on a Virgin train at the height of summer. Imagine that train has broken down and the air conditioning is not working...
I don't need to imagine that, because it happened to me and the family back in the early 2000s. What was good was that the train crew had prepared by not loading water. If it had gone on much longer, there would have been some medical repercussions.
Virgin have improved a lot since those dark days, but Great Western seem as bad as ever.
Yeah, Virgin have improved, but Richard Branson is still a complete
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Hate to break it to you, but most if not all big EU countries do have national rail.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy.... even your neighbours across the border have Irish Rail, fully government-owned.
That privatisation was some sort or evil EU plot is another cheap Brussels-bashing myth. All the EU requires is separate magament of tracks and rail operators and that the tracks are open to private competition, but of course the Thatcher-Major governments saw this as a fitting excuse to push their privatise everything agenda.
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Hate to break it to you, but most if not all big EU countries do have national rail.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy.... even your neighbours across the border have Irish Rail, fully government-owned.
All the EU requires is separate magament of tracks and rail operators and that the tracks are open to private competition, but of course the Thatcher-Major governments saw this as a fitting excuse to push their privatise everything agenda.
How can you have national railroads if you aren´t allowed to have nationalised railroads and tracks? And how can it be nationalised if it's open to private competition
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Hate to break it to you, but most if not all big EU countries do have national rail.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy.... even your neighbours across the border have Irish Rail, fully government-owned.
All the EU requires is separate magament of tracks and rail operators and that the tracks are open to private competition, but of course the Thatcher-Major governments saw this as a fitting excuse to push their privatise everything agenda.
How can you have national railroads if you aren´t allowed to have nationalised railroads and tracks? And how can it be nationalised if it's open to private competition
State controlled services don't have to go out to competition. A lot of UK local authorities are now bring services back in house because it is more cost effective. There is no competition then; it's how you implement it that is important (so for example you couldn't create a new state controlled company and then give all the business to them), but you can bring the service 'in-house' so the operations fall under the umbrella of the government body.
Future War Cultist wrote: You guys might be on to something with renationalisation. Here in Northern Ireland our train and bus services are state owned and they're great. It's run by a public company called Translink, which is devided into Ulsterbus, N.I railways and Metro (Belfast city bus services). No complaints from me. Well ok, they're not perfect but they're better than your ones!
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
We had nationalisation, and it wasn't perfect, and privatization was supposed to be the magic bullet, but 20 years later, it has clearly failed. We may as well take back our railways and put an end to this nonsense of British rail passengers subsidising cheaper fares in other nations.
It's the implementation that is important. The old state services were different, you had (overly) strong unions that would resist almost any change, benefits that private industry would not offer and lots of general inefficiency. Most of this has been driven out now. The only real risk factor left is MPs getting sticky fingers and trying to implement some cost inefficient scheme (like all seats must be made from leather).
ulgurstasta wrote: How can you have national railroads if you aren´t allowed to have nationalised railroads and tracks? And how can it be nationalised if it's open to private competition
By having national group running? What's the matter? Affraid of competition? If private companies come in they have to offer service that makes them better for customers. Good for customers. If there's just national one what incentive they have to actually make sure they are cost effective...
What national group can do is provide minimum level companies need to provide.
But yeah keep on bashing EU and ignore the facts like all the national trains going on. Ignoring facts is always so good idea after all.
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Hate to break it to you, but most if not all big EU countries do have national rail.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy.... even your neighbours across the border have Irish Rail, fully government-owned.
All the EU requires is separate magament of tracks and rail operators and that the tracks are open to private competition, but of course the Thatcher-Major governments saw this as a fitting excuse to push their privatise everything agenda.
How can you have national railroads if you aren´t allowed to have nationalised railroads and tracks? And how can it be nationalised if it's open to private competition
You have several misconceptions there.
EU rules do not prevent public ownership of tracks or railroads. They do not allow a single, public company to own the tracks and operate the railroads at the same time.
The way most countries did this in the continent was to split the old state monopoly into two different companies.
One owning the tracks, which is obligated by law to offer the same conditions to anyone wishing to operate trains on their tracks, and another one that operates the trains, which has to compete in the open market against private operators (and public operators from other countries).
There's nothing wrong with public ownership as long as competition is permitted.
Personally I think they should start again tomorrow.
My argument would be that the objective of the terrorists is to disrupt western national life. Halting an election is a pretty big disruption, and our best weapon is to carry on as we intended.
I would like to see British Rail returned. With red livery and everything. My only concern is the unions. I can see them taking the country hostage, like the way the underground takes London hostage but on a national scale. I saw first hand the ugly side of unions in my old job. But I'm sure a way can be found to make it work.
For energy, wouldn't it be cool if the state could take control of production and leave supply to the private sector. So that we can get the best of both worlds?
Future War Cultist wrote: I would like to see British Rail returned. With red livery and everything. My only concern is the unions. I can see them taking the country hostage, like the way the underground takes London hostage but on a national scale. I saw first hand the ugly side of unions in my old job. But I'm sure a way can be found to make it work.
For energy, wouldn't it be cool if the state could take control of production and leave supply to the private sector. So that we can get the best of both worlds?
By best of both worlds you mean the state having to fund all the actual production of energy whilst the private companies just gouge the public in order to make profit?
Future War Cultist wrote: I would like to see British Rail returned. With red livery and everything. My only concern is the unions. I can see them taking the country hostage, like the way the underground takes London hostage but on a national scale. I saw first hand the ugly side of unions in my old job. But I'm sure a way can be found to make it work.
For energy, wouldn't it be cool if the state could take control of production and leave supply to the private sector. So that we can get the best of both worlds?
This ain't the 1970s. The power of the unions has been broken. The days of Jack Jones, Red Robbo, flying pickets, and Big Jim Reid, are long gone.
There is nothing to fear from the unions, despite what the Daily Mail says about Len Mcluskey.
Future War Cultist wrote: I would like to see British Rail returned. With red livery and everything. My only concern is the unions. I can see them taking the country hostage, like the way the underground takes London hostage but on a national scale. I saw first hand the ugly side of unions in my old job. But I'm sure a way can be found to make it work.
For energy, wouldn't it be cool if the state could take control of production and leave supply to the private sector. So that we can get the best of both worlds?
By best of both worlds you mean the state having to fund all the actual production of energy whilst the private companies just gouge the public in order to make profit?
We let the banks get away with doing that to the taxpayer with the bail outs, so I'm surprised the energy companies haven't tried something similar.
Right now, generation and supply are done by the same group of companies.
They literally sell themselves the power they've generated (via power stations built by tax payer money). And then pretend their profits are all off shore.
If wholesale rises, prices go up. If it dips? The prices go up.
That's a broken economy right there.
Water, Power, Transportation. All should be publicly owned, on account they're national necessities. And I'm especially vocal about public transport.
Here's the scenario I always fall back on, because it actually happened.
2012, I went for my current job, which of course I got. But it was in London, and I'm in Kent. That meant commuting.
Now at that point, once all my bills were paid, I had around £200 a month.
That first month's train ticket? Yeah. £432....
If it wasn't for my parents being willing and able to help, I wouldn't be where I am today, earning triple what I was on (previous job paid peanuts), with the resultant reduction in my economic activity.
And why is it so high? Well, there's only one train line where I am, the London to Hastings. And it's operated by a single company. A company who seem to have figured 'charge what we want, it's not like they have a choice'.
The whole argument that competition improves efficiency and tackles prices is therefore utter bunkum. Hell, prices have risen so much in the past five years that my employer has had to scrap the £5,000.00 season ticket loan cap.
£5,000.00.....consider that. That's money that doesn't benefit the economy.
In 2016, Southeastern doubled their profits from £13.3m to £26.8m, despite running a piss poor service. And to really kick us in the balls? They received £42.8m in subsidies and revenue support that year, paying back only £24m....
Why are we subsidising a private, for profit business? One that would regularly stop my train before they got me to my destination? One that would cancel trains at the drop of a hat?
It's utter insanity. If they're turning any kind of profit, why in the name of Satan's 23' of throbbing red gristle are we subsidising them?
The Government took back one of the main lines a few years back when it's operator seemingly couldn't be arsed. And when that happened, it was run at a decent profit, so cost the tax payer sweet f.a.....until it was sold on again...mmmmmm, love those subsidies.
It really is time for a wholesale rejection of the myth of privatisation. It doesn't do what it promised. It brings a shonkier service for a higher price, all to line the pockets of the CEO and board.
But public sector workers are lazy, can't be fired, sit around drinking tea and have gold plated pensions!
Non of which is true, but is the belief of many that are anti public sector. My experience has been that most in the public sector have a deep belief in the work they do and are fighting against under funding and pointless regulation from the top. People like to claim the public sector is inefficient. From my experience this is mostly down to either having to change what you are doing all the time based on the whims of the latest politician in charge or not being able to afford to make change. Imagine working in a company that had a new CEO every two years who decided to change the whole ethos of the business but invested nothing, or hugely less than your accountants say you need to run, how long would it be until you went bust.
Kilkrazy wrote: Personally I think they should start again tomorrow.
My argument would be that the objective of the terrorists is to disrupt western national life. Halting an election is a pretty big disruption, and our best weapon is to carry on as we intended.
But one day does not make a huge difference.
Local campaigns restart Thursday with activists.
National leaders Friday.
True. But if peoples lives where genuinely at risk from the terror cell worthy of critical, the police so stretched in counter terror that army is filling in static guard. Its a good idea stabilize first.
As it stands teresea may or any senior minister will be quite a security drain for where they go. Corbyn slightly less but still not easy.
Steve steveson wrote: But public sector workers are lazy, can't be fired, sit around drinking tea and have gold plated pensions!
Non of which is true, but is the belief of many that are anti public sector. My experience has been that most in the public sector have a deep belief in the work they do and are fighting against under funding and pointless regulation from the top. People like to claim the public sector is inefficient. From my experience this is mostly down to either having to change what you are doing all the time based on the whims of the latest politician in charge or not being able to afford to make change. Imagine working in a company that had a new CEO every two years who decided to change the whole ethos of the business but invested nothing, or hugely less than your accountants say you need to run, how long would it be until you went bust.
You make good points, but you'd also change your mind if you saw some of the binmen of Belfast inaction. And emphasis on inaction.
Yes, the management from the very top down are terrible too. But justify this. They're paid from 7:30 to 3:30, with a 45 minute break. Yet they'll go out, do only some of their run, come back in between 11 and 1 (some of the garden and food waste squads come back in at 10!) with hours of work left to do and go 'we're done for the day. Didn't get this this and this done. Sort it out. Bye.' And then they go home, swiping out at a council facility of their choosing. Meanwhile, the council is then forced to use agency workers (who cost them three times as much an hour as their own) to go out to finish the work not done. This is on top of the work they've already had to do anyway. Due to the costs, they are effectively paying four people to do one persons job. And they do this because when pressured, the workers (I use that term losely) immediately threaten union action.
I could tell stories of what they do; going back to the yard to ship off, then returning to their area to work for 20 minutes only to then return to the yard again to take their break, turning that 45 minute break into a 2 hour one. Refusing to leave the yard until they've cleaned their lorry from top to bottom. Stopping work to argue with each other over bs, then threatening the mangers who ask why the tracker in the lorry shows them rooted to the one spot for half and hour. I won't even tell you about the 'golf bag' incident because it's so disgusting.
Point is, sometimes in some places the horror stories about unionised public sector workers are true. I'm up for nationalising but only if we can avoid union bs like what I've witnessed here.
Steve steveson wrote: But public sector workers are lazy, can't be fired, sit around drinking tea and have gold plated pensions!
Non of which is true, but is the belief of many that are anti public sector. My experience has been that most in the public sector have a deep belief in the work they do and are fighting against under funding and pointless regulation from the top. People like to claim the public sector is inefficient. From my experience this is mostly down to either having to change what you are doing all the time based on the whims of the latest politician in charge or not being able to afford to make change. Imagine working in a company that had a new CEO every two years who decided to change the whole ethos of the business but invested nothing, or hugely less than your accountants say you need to run, how long would it be until you went bust.
You make good points, but you'd also change your mind if you saw some of the binmen of Belfast inaction. And emphasis on inaction.
Yes, the management from the very top down are terrible too. But justify this. They're paid from 7:30 to 3:30, with a 45 minute break. Yet they'll go out, do only some of their run, come back in between 11 and 1 (some of the garden and food waste squads come back in at 10!) with hours of work left to do and go 'we're done for the day. Didn't get this this and this done. Sort it out. Bye.' And then they go home, swiping out at a council facility of their choosing. Meanwhile, the council is then forced to use agency workers (who cost them three times as much an hour as their own) to go out to finish the work not done. This is on top of the work they've already had to do anyway. Due to the costs, they are effectively paying four people to do one persons job. And they do this because when pressured, the workers (I use that term losely) immediately threaten union action.
I could tell stories of what they do; going back to the yard to ship off, then returning to their area to work for 20 minutes only to then return to the yard again to take their break, turning that 45 minute break into a 2 hour one. Refusing to leave the yard until they've cleaned their lorry from top to bottom. Stopping work to argue with each other over bs, then threatening the mangers who ask why the tracker in the lorry shows them rooted to the one spot for half and hour. I won't even tell you about the 'golf bag' incident because it's so disgusting.
Point is, sometimes in some places the horror stories about unionised public sector workers are true. I'm up for nationalising but only if we can avoid union bs like what I've witnessed here.
So literally some are lazy, therefore all are lazy?
Pull the other one.
See, all I ever hear about is 'the 70's...unions. Grr! Terrible man, Terrible man. Terrible terrible terrible man'.
But I wasn't there. I was born in 1980. And let me tell you what I've seen.
The systemic stripping away of any and nearly all Nice Things my parent's generation enjoyed. I can't afford to buy a house, despite earning more than the national average. I'm lucky to have a decent pension plan through my work - but if I leave here I can't pay in anymore. Many of my colleagues are in a financial rut because of ridiculous Uni fees imposed on them by those who enjoyed the largesse of others, then claimed 'why should I pay for someone else's'.
And it's time for that to come to an end. We're a wealthy country. We can afford Nice Things for our populace. It's high time the myth of austerity was exposed.
See, all I ever hear about is 'the 70's...unions. Grr! Terrible man, Terrible man. Terrible terrible terrible man'.
But I wasn't there. I was born in 1980. And let me tell you what I've seen.
The systemic stripping away of any and nearly all Nice Things my parent's generation enjoyed. I can't afford to buy a house, despite earning more than the national average. I'm lucky to have a decent pension plan through my work - but if I leave here I can't pay in anymore. Many of my colleagues are in a financial rut because of ridiculous Uni fees imposed on them by those who enjoyed the largesse of others, then claimed 'why should I pay for someone else's'.
And it's time for that to come to an end. We're a wealthy country. We can afford Nice Things for our populace. It's high time the myth of austerity was exposed.
The myth of austerity has been exposed, trouble is, they still going to vote in the party that gave them austerity because Corbyn met the IRA in 1974 or something...
Yes, my home was flooded, and yes, the Tory government cut funding for flood defences, but I'll vote Tory because Corbyn went to East Germany in the 1970s
Yes, the Tories are slashing police budgets at a time of heightened terror threat, but I'll still vote Tory, because Corbyn never wore a shirt and tie in the 1980s...
Our trains are rubbish, they should be re-nationalised, and damn the Tories for privatizing them, but I'll still vote Tory because Corbyn...something...something
He didn't just meet the IRA in the seventies. He was their active cheerleader for decades. He opposed the Anglo Irish agreement and at first he opppsed the Good Friday Agreement too because he didn't think that republicans had to compromise. He calls himself a man of peace but he's a fething lair.
Future War Cultist wrote: He didn't just meet the IRA in the seventies. He was their active cheerleader for decades. He opposed the Anglo Irish agreement and at first he opppsed the Good Friday Agreement too because he didn't think that republicans had to compromise. He calls himself a man of peace but he's a fething lair.
I don't disagree with any of this, but this is what gets my goat:
The same people who criticise Corbyn are the same people who were:
Happy to deal with the apartheid South African government
Happy to deal with Saddam in the 1980s
Considered Assad a key ally against terrorism pre-Syrian civil war
turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen etc etc
Future War Cultist wrote: He didn't just meet the IRA in the seventies. He was their active cheerleader for decades. He opposed the Anglo Irish agreement and at first he opppsed the Good Friday Agreement too because he didn't think that republicans had to compromise. He calls himself a man of peace but he's a lair.
I don't disagree with any of this, but this is what gets my goat:
The same people who criticise Corbyn are the same people who were:
Happy to deal with the apartheid South African government
Happy to deal with Saddam in the 1980s
Considered Assad a key ally against terrorism pre-Syrian civil war
turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen etc etc
It's the double standards that annoy me
And General Pinochet. Don't forget him and his human right abuses.
I had forgotten about General Pinochet and Thatcher.
Anyway, Craig Murray, IMO, has written an excellent article about troops on British streets and what it means for the election. YMMV
As always, I'll point out that Murray is pro-Scottish independence, hates the Tories, but on the plus side, he worked for years at the Foreign Office, including a stint as ambassador to Uzbekistan, before getting the boot for blowing the lid on suspects being tortured there in order to provide intel to the UK and USA.
So he does have good insights on the inner working of Her Majesty's Government.
And now that we'll be out of the eu it'll be nice and legal too. Up yours Junker.
Hate to break it to you, but most if not all big EU countries do have national rail.
France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy.... even your neighbours across the border have Irish Rail, fully government-owned.
All the EU requires is separate magament of tracks and rail operators and that the tracks are open to private competition, but of course the Thatcher-Major governments saw this as a fitting excuse to push their privatise everything agenda.
How can you have national railroads if you aren´t allowed to have nationalised railroads and tracks? And how can it be nationalised if it's open to private competition
You have several misconceptions there.
EU rules do not prevent public ownership of tracks or railroads. They do not allow a single, public company to own the tracks and operate the railroads at the same time.
The way most countries did this in the continent was to split the old state monopoly into two different companies.
One owning the tracks, which is obligated by law to offer the same conditions to anyone wishing to operate trains on their tracks, and another one that operates the trains, which has to compete in the open market against private operators (and public operators from other countries).
There's nothing wrong with public ownership as long as competition is permitted.
I'm a tory leaning voter and I think a re nationalisation of public transport could be a good thing. For Rail its the passengers that effectively subsidise improvements and developments through fares. It seems to make sense to put the entire network under public ownership. I could imagine a service that could actually turn a profit for the exchequer AND provide a relatively pain free experience for commuters.
Though it would rely on routes not servicing the south East and London being viable. Which comes back to the long term issue of moving reliance away from the south.
Future War Cultist wrote: He didn't just meet the IRA in the seventies. He was their active cheerleader for decades. He opposed the Anglo Irish agreement and at first he opppsed the Good Friday Agreement too because he didn't think that republicans had to compromise. He calls himself a man of peace but he's a fething lair.
To be fair the Tories did the same thing. They just didn't think the nationalists should have to compromise...its just the same thing but a different side of the coin.
Yes, the management from the very top down are terrible too. But justify this. They're paid from 7:30 to 3:30, with a 45 minute break. Yet they'll go out, do only some of their run, come back in between 11 and 1 (some of the garden and food waste squads come back in at 10!) with hours of work left to do and go 'we're done for the day. Didn't get this this and this done. Sort it out. Bye.' And then they go home, swiping out at a council facility of their choosing. Meanwhile, the council is then forced to use agency workers (who cost them three times as much an hour as their own) to go out to finish the work not done. This is on top of the work they've already had to do anyway. Due to the costs, they are effectively paying four people to do one persons job. And they do this because when pressured, the workers (I use that term losely) immediately threaten union action.
Assuming this is true and not one bad crew being mirrored on all of them then the problem here is bad management. The workers would have no chance at a tribunal if they kept this up because they simply would not be fulfilling there contract they have signed up to. However I'm generally of the opinion that there may be more to this story than is presented here because if it was consistently occurring then the Belfast would be knee deep in garbage. I can accept a few bad examples can occur but that does not mean all the crews should be tarnished with the same brush.
Ye. That's much what I was thinking. There is a problem with publicly owned services in that if poor management is not addressed it can run riot, as they are never going to go bust or lose customers, but that's a management and control issue, not a fundamental issue with the concept. It's the same issue that is behind UK companies having 15% lower productivity than other G7 nations. Problematic unions are not normally the cause of issues, but a symptom of a workforce that is poorly managed. Most people are not lazy and want to do a good job, if they are properly managed and motivated. This is something lacking in most U.K. industries.
Management are a part of the problem for sure. In this case it's because of how reluctant they are to crack the whip with these guys and the frankly bizarre way the contracts were written up. The two biggest issues? Once a team finished their own round they were allowed to bugger off home, no matter how much work still remained. And all they had to do to avoid doing work was to claim that the cars were blocking the road or in the case of assisted lifts that the gate was locked. The management always took them at their word. I've encountered people on the assisted lift list (eldarly and/or disabled people) who hadn't had their bins emptied in months.
Us agency workers were the only ones holding the place up yet we were treated like the garbage we were collecting. I'll never forget the time I watched the network controller getting chewed out by one of the foremen for daring to criticise their lack of activity, frankly taking it all like a bitch, only for him to then turn around and bite the head off me for being back at the yard. Even though the beater of a lorry we had had sprung a hydraulic leak and I was standing there covered in the oil as proof.
But again we are expensive. We made sure all the work was done by working three times as hard as the full time workers but that cost the council an extra 750000 a year. Money they really don't have.
I found it mildly entertaining this article made it onto the front page of the BBC.
Tories and Labour not being honest with voters: IFS By Chris Johnston
Neither the Conservatives nor Labour are being honest with voters about the economic consequences of their policy proposals, an influential think tank has warned.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies said the Tories had very few tax or spending commitments in their manifesto.
Labour, in contrast, was proposing very big increases in tax and spending.
However, the IFS said Labour's plans for paying for its proposed expansion in state activity would not work.
IFS deputy director Carl Emmerson said neither manifesto gave voters an honest set of choices or addressed the long-term challenges the UK faced.
"For Labour, we can have pretty much everything - free higher education, free childcare, more spending on pay, health, infrastructure. And the pretence is that can all be funded by faceless corporations and 'the rich'," he said.
"There is a choice we can make as a country to have a bigger state - that would not make us unusual in international terms. But that comes at a cost in higher taxes, which would inevitably need to be borne by large numbers of us."
Meanwhile, the Conservatives offered spending cuts the party had already promised, Mr Emmerson said.
"Additional funding pledges for the NHS and schools are just confirming that spending would rise in a way broadly consistent with the March Budget," he told a briefing in London on Friday.
"Compared with Labour, they are offering a relatively smaller state and consequently lower taxes. With that offer come unacknowledged risks to the quality of public services, and tough choices over spending."
The IFS said the Tory plans "imply at least another five years of austerity, with the continuation of planned welfare cuts and serious pressures on the public services including on the NHS".
Labour's calculations that £49bn a year could be raised from the wealthiest individuals and companies were flawed and would raise £40bn at most in the short term, and less in the long term, it said.
he Conservatives' plan to impose what the IFS called "very big cuts" to working-age welfare benefits would save £11bn annually by 2021-22, but would significantly cut the incomes of the poorest working age households.
"Labour's manifesto in fact commits it to cancelling only a small minority of these cuts... changing this would require finding several billion pounds extra from somewhere," the IFS said.
The Conservative commitments to replace the "triple lock" on the state pension with a "double lock" from April 2020 and means-test winter fuel allowance payments represent a "very modest change", according to the think tank.
However, Labour's proposal to maintain the triple lock and to start paying state pensions no later than the age of 66 would be "immensely expensive in the long run - up to £50bn a year in 50 years time" compared with raising the state pension age in line with life expectancy and increasing the pension in line with earnings.
It's not often I agree with Corbyn, but he was spot on today with his attack on British foreign policy, and its possible contribution to terrorist attacks.
British policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, has been a shambles from start to finish
The vacuum we created with the fall of Saddam and Gadaffi, has allowed the void to be filled by these fanatics, who can train, plan, and implement with impunity.
And yet, nothing has changed. Cameron wanted to blow up more camels in Syria, and by all accounts, May is itching to send in the jets if she becomes PM.
I don't regard the manifesto points as plans so much as aspirations.
Britain can't be really so badly fethed that no-one can create an outline of a workable plan, surely.
We are still the world's fifth (?) largest economy, and that is coming in behind the USA, PRC, Germany and Japan, all of which are much larger, more populous countries.
Thatcher's decision in the 1980s to move away from making stuff and instead opting to let the spivs and speculators take over
corruption
incompetent politicians
abolition of grammar schools
privitization in the 1990s
The Conservative party abandoning conservatism
Black Wednesday
The conservative party
Tony Blair
Blairism
British foreign policy since 2001
Tony Blair
I could go on all day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: The IFS report.. let's see how that is covered then :
Spoiler:
Grauniad :
but in the mail.....
can't help but think one or two pertinent facts have been omitted here or there....
The IFS is not as impartial or independent as it makes itself out to be. It came under a lot of fire during 2014's Scottish independence referendum. Some of its claims back then were risible.
Really? are you proposing that we should go back to enslaving a third of the world again (or shouldn't have abandoned that principle) just to keep the UK 'great'?
The comments are just soundbites of personal opinions and don't mean anything.
I could easily include:-
Invasion by the Roman Empire
Hanging of Charles I
etc etc.
I could also point out that getting rid of grammar schools as benefited more people overall even if a few (mainly affluent) people lost out. The more higher quality education for all could quite easily be why we are 5th and not 10th etc because there is a higher quality pool of people to call on.
Everything has a cost, the real question is who should pay for it. Should it be the poor (through poorer public services, higher overall tax of their income; the wealthy; or a balance so that the more you earn the more you put into society and so everyone pays a share for the service that they may one day need even if it isn't today.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't regard the manifesto points as plans so much as aspirations.
Britain can't be really so badly fethed that no-one can create an outline of a workable plan, surely.
We are still the world's fifth (?) largest economy, and that is coming in behind the USA, PRC, Germany and Japan, all of which are much larger, more populous countries.
What has gone wrong?
Given the timing of the election, the very short timescale to prepare it's not really surprising there are gaping holes everywhere. It's unlikely any of the plans have gone through ultra rigorous checks. It's not also as if they are legally bound to enacting them.
Still it looks like people in the UK are taking action into their own hands and simply leaving before it all goes to hell in a hand basket anyway. It's not just EU citizens either, there is a significant upturn in UK citizen deciding now would be the time to leave before the drawbridge gets raised.
The big plus to the exodus is that it makes the immigration target easier to hit.
As in the UKIP manifesto, we won't let a single brain surgeon or rocket scientist into the country until a strawberry picker or cocktail waitress has gone out.
Future War Cultist wrote: Management are a part of the problem for sure. In this case it's because of how reluctant they are to crack the whip with these guys and the frankly bizarre way the contracts were written up. The two biggest issues? Once a team finished their own round they were allowed to bugger off home, no matter how much work still remained. And all they had to do to avoid doing work was to claim that the cars were blocking the road or in the case of assisted lifts that the gate was locked. The management always took them at their word. I've encountered people on the assisted lift list (eldarly and/or disabled people) who hadn't had their bins emptied in months.
Us agency workers were the only ones holding the place up yet we were treated like the garbage we were collecting. I'll never forget the time I watched the network controller getting chewed out by one of the foremen for daring to criticise their lack of activity, frankly taking it all like a bitch, only for him to then turn around and bite the head off me for being back at the yard. Even though the beater of a lorry we had had sprung a hydraulic leak and I was standing there covered in the oil as proof.
But again we are expensive. We made sure all the work was done by working three times as hard as the full time workers but that cost the council an extra 750000 a year. Money they really don't have.
Why so bitter at those lazy union fethers then? Sounds like you'd be out of work if they busted their balls to get the rounds done.
Of course I don't want the Empire back - good riddance to it.
By loss of Empire, I'm talking about our role, our place in the world, who we are as a people.
Ever since the Americans knocked us from the #1 spot, we've struggled to forge an identity, a role for ourselves.
We had this horrible Atlantic bridge, half-way house approach of trying to hang on to American's coat tails, whilst being the awkward member of the EU.
Sadly, we ended up with neither, because if you try and be all things to all men, people think you're not being serious.
Like I've said before, the EU situation is tragic, because if we had taken it seriously from the start, the UK could have been the driving force, not Germany.
But years of sniping from the sidelines put paid to that...
Kilkrazy wrote: The big plus to the exodus is that it makes the immigration target easier to hit.
As in the UKIP manifesto, we won't let a single brain surgeon or rocket scientist into the country until a strawberry picker or cocktail waitress has gone out.
Yeah a high quality well thought out concept completely ignoring that both add significant benefits to the Country. Still it looks like UKIP are going to be dead and buried after this election so that's one silver lining we can look forward to (and hopefully less of their tripe on TV).
UKIP lost their prime function of being the Brexit party. Despite their rhetoric of the past few months about "keeping the government's feet to the fire" in pursuit of the hardest possible form of Brexit, the new manifesto IMO reveals that their core motivation is anti-immigration.
The opinion polls are narrowing, and the sense of panic at conservative supporting websites is something to behold
It's been a bad week for May, and Fallon seems to be the Tories' answer to Abbott.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: UKIP lost their prime function of being the Brexit party. Despite their rhetoric of the past few months about "keeping the government's feet to the fire" in pursuit of the hardest possible form of Brexit, the new manifesto IMO reveals that their core motivation is anti-immigration.
Yeah, the UKIP manifesto launch was a shambles, with policy being made up on the hoof.
Corbyn's message is getting through and May's incompetence and cowardice avoiding debate and questioning is beginning to bite. We could end up in another coalition situation, but how would the Liberal Democrats work with anyone given they want a second Brexit referendum and the main parties have ruled it out?
I'm no Corbyn fan, but to his credit, he's walking the streets and getting his message out there, and it's a message that is tapping into the national mood.
Take back the trains, and no more disastrous foreign interventions, is something most people agree on.
And above all, Corbyn actually believes in stuff, even if you disagree with it.
None of this wishy-washy, centre ground Blairite bullgak that Miliband/May/Cameron believed in.
May by contrast has been shambolic. U-turns, cabinet ministers kept out of the loop, and then humiliated on TV by the u-turns, and the hiding away of May from public scrutiny.
I still think Middle England will hold its nose and vote for May, but talk of a landslide is out the window now.
A very small note of consolation for you is that Coryn is a decades long opponent of the EU and probably did vote for Brexit last year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Corbyn's message is getting through and May's incompetence and cowardice avoiding debate and questioning is beginning to bite. We could end up in another coalition situation, but how would the Liberal Democrats work with anyone given they want a second Brexit referendum and the main parties have ruled it out?
A rainbow coalition of Labour/Libs/SNP/Green/PC would be something to behold
For the record, I think the tories are plain awful too. They're only just slightly ahead of Labour in my esteems. That's how desperate things are these days.
That's highly unlikely as they would need to gain all the seats they lost in Scotland and some areas are still true blue just because. The more likely scenario is you will have a hung parliament if Labour continue the momentum they are building.
It appears that Labour got their car crash interviews out early whereas Tories are still floundering as soon as they go on TV (even Mays TV interview was a car crash and simply wasn't allowed to spout the usual nonsense.
Of course it doesn't help that Tories are now resorting to straight out lying and it's so obvious people have seen it a mile away.
Howard A Treesong wrote: We could end up in another coalition situation, but how would the Liberal Democrats work with anyone given they want a second Brexit referendum and the main parties have ruled it out?
LDs don't want a second referendum on the same thing. They want the people to have a say once we have educated information on what looking like leaving the EU will be and to vote on what the 'deal' is. Given that we had no information of substance from either side that seems a sound plan. After all you can't really have the 'will of the people' if no one is told what it actually mean to leave relative to remain. As I've pointed out before I am generally supportive of a three way vote once the deal is known (go WTO, stay in, take the deal).
Howard A Treesong wrote: Corbyn's message is getting through and May's incompetence and cowardice avoiding debate and questioning is beginning to bite. We could end up in another coalition situation, but how would the Liberal Democrats work with anyone given they want a second Brexit referendum and the main parties have ruled it out?
Parties can change their minds, e.g. the Tories flipping on two major taxation issues in the past couple of months.
However, if a coalition was proposed and refused because of the desire to avoid a second referendum (why, though*?) the government would form as a minority and quickly be defeated and another election would have to be run. The other chance is that no party would be willing to form a government and another election would be needed.
*Is there a genuine worry that a second Brexit referendum would not produce a strong vote for Leave?
I think Middle England knows in its heart that May is way out of her depth.
Sadly, years of anti-left bias from the Daily Mail will result in Middle England holding its nose and voting Conservative, because they'll never elect a Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell government
Talk of a landslide is way off the mark. It'll be like 2015 again.
In other news, it's good to see troops coming off the streets on Monday. IMO, it was an overreaction, completely against the British spirit of liberty, and another step into turning us into a Banana Republic.
I'm also hearing that Amber Rudd will debate for the Tories on TV, as May has refused to sign up for it.
We'd better hope that the EU doesn't threaten to televise the Brexit negotiations, otherwise May will roll up the white flag.
In other news, it's good to see troops coming off the streets on Monday. IMO, it was an overreaction, completely against the British spirit of liberty, and another step into turning us into a Banana Republic.
See, the fact they came off the streets so fast actually reinforces my belief in the system. They announced critical status. They did what they needed to do to defuse whatever was clearly going on behind the scenes. Then they repealed it. No fuss, no dragging it out as a state of emergency. It makes me more inclined to believe in it next time, to be honest.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think Middle England knows in its heart that May is way out of her depth.
Sadly, years of anti-left bias from the Daily Mail will result in Middle England holding its nose and voting Conservative, because they'll never elect a Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell government
Talk of a landslide is way off the mark. It'll be like 2015 again.
In other news, it's good to see troops coming off the streets on Monday. IMO, it was an overreaction, completely against the British spirit of liberty, and another step into turning us into a Banana Republic.
I'm also hearing that Amber Rudd will debate for the Tories on TV, as May has refused to sign up for it.
We'd better hope that the EU doesn't threaten to televise the Brexit negotiations, otherwise May will roll up the white flag.
They did what was needed to protect the UK in time of emergency.
No 6 month states or suspensions of normal policing with long term army deployment.
When over withdrew.
I believe they did right for country at end of day.
If May, as Home Secretary, these past seven years, hadn't taken a chainsaw to police officer numbers, we wouldn't need the army on the streets, because we would plug the gap with specially trained firearms officers. The blame for this lack of specialist police firearms officers lays squarely at May's door. The British army is trained to fight the armies of other nation states, not patrol British streets!
Sources and empirical evidence is your best weapon in any argument, so this article from Craig Murray, which references an official British government document, is a real eye opener.
The graphs showing the cut in police numbers in relation to May's time as Home Sec. is heart breaking.
I would recommend that for the sake of your blood pressure, you should not read this article, future war cultist...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think Middle England knows in its heart that May is way out of her depth.
Sadly, years of anti-left bias from the Daily Mail will result in Middle England holding its nose and voting Conservative, because they'll never elect a Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell government
Talk of a landslide is way off the mark. It'll be like 2015 again.
In other news, it's good to see troops coming off the streets on Monday. IMO, it was an overreaction, completely against the British spirit of liberty, and another step into turning us into a Banana Republic.
I'm also hearing that Amber Rudd will debate for the Tories on TV, as May has refused to sign up for it.
We'd better hope that the EU doesn't threaten to televise the Brexit negotiations, otherwise May will roll up the white flag.
They did what was needed to protect the UK in time of emergency.
No 6 month states or suspensions of normal policing with long term army deployment.
When over withdrew.
I believe they did right for country at end of day.
I saw pictures of troops on trains standing next to luggage racks. Do their guns have x-ray machines on them? I ask, because there was no way on Earth that they could detect a bomb hidden in one of those suitcases.
The question of police cuts is really beside the point; namely that they clearly identified a threat, raised the alert status for a short period and deployed extra security, and then lowered it again. Whether you think the security should have come from Organisation A or B is somewhat beside the point.
For the record though, I disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of the troops in such a capacity. After a decade and a half hanging around in the Middle East in a peacekeeping role, where the proliferation of bombs and those who utilise them is several magnitudes higher, the British Army has considerable experience in dealing with this sort of thing. More than the police, I should warrant. They've dealt with too many IED's and car bombings to be novices at this game.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but it's a bit illogical to argue that the Tories are turning the UK into a police state by running down the numbers of police.
They've been running down the numbers of the army too.
OTOH you did say May is incompetent.
The evidence speaks for itself: the clear correlation between May's tenure as Home Sec. and the reduction in front line police officers is there to see. And this is official HMG documents saying that.
Given that we have seen all sorts of draconian spying laws being passed these last years, I'd argue the police state is still a rsik, even if front-line police officer numbers are dropping.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: The question of police cuts is really beside the point; namely that they clearly identified a threat, raised the alert status for a short period and deployed extra security, and then lowered it again. Whether you think the security should have come from Organisation A or B is somewhat beside the point.
For the record though, I disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of the troops in such a capacity. After a decade and a half hanging around in the Middle East in a peacekeeping role, where the proliferation of bombs and those who utilise them is several magnitudes higher, the British Army has considerable experience in dealing with this sort of thing. More than the police, I should warrant. They've dealt with too many IED's and car bombings to be novices at this game.
Troops are no defence against a bomb tucked away in a suitcase. If, say, for example, I had a bomb stashed away in a bag, and walked past a soldier at a railway station, and pulled the detonator, then sadly, the soldier is not much use in stopping that.
Counter-terrorism really is a case of prevention being better than cure.
As for your earlier point about organisation A or B providing security, it is a relevant point, as only one option was on the table. The other having been cut back to the bare bone!
For me, the bottom line is this: the Tories can't be trusted with this nation's security. They've ran down the armed forces these past 7 years. Historically, they rolled up the white flag to Hitler in the 1930s, and pre-Falklands War, they reduced the defence of the Falkland Isles as to almost invite Argentina to attack.
The irony is that if Argentina hadn't invaded, Thatcher probably would have gave them the Falklands.
Ketara wrote: The question of police cuts is really beside the point; namely that they clearly identified a threat, raised the alert status for a short period and deployed extra security, and then lowered it again. Whether you think the security should have come from Organisation A or B is somewhat beside the point.
The alternative and perhaps more cycnical view is that they had no intelligence of the attack and it caught them by surprise. Hence there was no knowledge as to whether it was the first of many attacks or a 'one off' lone wolf. As such they took the approach that without additional knowledge to take an assumption that it was the first of a possible wave of attacks and hence put the army on a 'protective' capacity until they had more evidence. Now they have had this (and it's looking more and more likely that it was a very isolated group or person) there is no reason to be on a critical alert because simply the person who made the bomb was the suicide attacker themselves (and hence lowers the risk of any more attacks). As such reduced police could have meant that the critical status was applied for longer (or at all) because there was reduced intelligence.
For the record though, I disagree with your assessment of the effectiveness of the troops in such a capacity. After a decade and a half hanging around in the Middle East in a peacekeeping role, where the proliferation of bombs and those who utilise them is several magnitudes higher, the British Army has considerable experience in dealing with this sort of thing. More than the police, I should warrant. They've dealt with too many IED's and car bombings to be novices at this game.
I can't recall where I heard the quote but once I read/heard a statement that the role of the police is to protect the people. The role of the military is to kill the enemies of the state. If you employ the army to do the police's role then you can quickly end up in a circumstance where the populace becomes the enemy of the state simply because of training. The police are meant to protect using the minimum of force, they ask questions first. They military role is to crush opposition with overwhelming force, they shoot first and ask questions later. You never want the military to take on the role of the police (especially long term).
The British tradition of policing has always been to have our constables unarmed whenever possible. I accept that in extraordinary circumstances, armed police are needed.
But this gradual 'acceptance' of troops on the streets, and gun totting police, fills me with unease.
Liberty and freedom is the birth right of every man, woman, and child on this island, and armed police as a routine occurrence, is not good in my book.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:l
Troops are no defence against a bomb tucked away in a suitcase. If, say, for example, I had a bomb stashed away in a bag, and walked past a soldier at a railway station, and pulled the detonator, then sadly, the soldier is not much use in stopping that.
Neither is an armed policeman or frankly, anything short of Superman. What's your point? The role of the soldiers is to be there in case of attack by a more conventional weapon (guns, knives, cars, etc) where they will have an ability to shoot at something, inspection at checkpoints (which you get a lot of at events) for suspicious looking devices and people (which I've pointed out, they have considerable expertise in), on-site trained personnel in defusing explosive devices if found (which they know more about than the police), and general deterrence (having a bunch of armed men staring at you can put people off of trying shenannigans).
Just because they're not the Man of Steel doesn't mean they're useless or that deploying them is 'tokenism'. They have a lot of expertise and skills which can be utilised in this sort of scenario, where you're watching for another potential attack of some kind.
As for your earlier point about organisation A or B providing security, it is a relevant point, as only one option was on the table. The other having been cut back to the bare bone!
Which....really has nothing to do with my noting with mild approval the speed and professionalism with which the 'critical' procedure appears to have been conducted. Saying 'Well, they'd have been able to deploy more police instead of soldiers if they hadn't cut them' right now is as about as relevant a statement to my specific comment as Corbyn complaining that there'd be less terrorists if people stopped bombing the Middle-East.
I mean, it's tangentially related to the subject, but not really to my comment at all?
Whirlwind wrote:[
I can't recall where I heard the quote but once I read/heard a statement that the role of the police is to protect the people. The role of the military is to kill the enemies of the state. If you employ the army to do the police's role then you can quickly end up in a circumstance where the populace becomes the enemy of the state simply because of training. The police are meant to protect using the minimum of force, they ask questions first. They military role is to crush opposition with overwhelming force, they shoot first and ask questions later. You never want the military to take on the role of the police (especially long term).
Probably one of Terry Pratchett's Watchmen quotes. And I'm inclined to agree with it, but I hardly think it applies to deploying a few thousand soldiers at high profile sites for a few days when there appears to be a known risk. The Rise of Facism it ain't.
The British tradition of policing has always been to have our constables unarmed whenever possible. I accept that in extraordinary circumstances, armed police are needed.
But this gradual 'acceptance' of troops on the streets, and gun totting police, fills me with unease.
Liberty and freedom is the birth right of every man, woman, and child on this island, and armed police as a routine occurrence, is not good in my book.
The time has long since past thr local constable with his shirt, revolver put the police safe and maybe bob with a lee Enfield who does shooting on weekend will cut it any longer.
Armed police are out there as a message that people know they exist, they are protecting them.
And thr Army was strictly emergency, we ain't France.
Plus the fact the army provided up to 3,800 extra eyes and ears out there was handy, also freeing up armed police to be at events, to be put there, and to put motr assets into assulting thr terror network.
I find the whole idea of unarmed policing a little stupid to be honest. In the worst incidents they'll be as vulnerable and as helpless as the public. Bystanders in uniforms. Granted, the American police take it too far in the other direction, effectively executing people for moving in the wrong direction, but there is a middle ground. They seem to have it in Europe and we definitely have it here in Northern Ireland.
And yeah, May cutting police numbers was a disgrace. She's a complete fool. Yet we're stuck with either her or Corbyn. What a mess.
Whirlwind wrote:[
I can't recall where I heard the quote but once I read/heard a statement that the role of the police is to protect the people. The role of the military is to kill the enemies of the state. If you employ the army to do the police's role then you can quickly end up in a circumstance where the populace becomes the enemy of the state simply because of training. The police are meant to protect using the minimum of force, they ask questions first. They military role is to crush opposition with overwhelming force, they shoot first and ask questions later. You never want the military to take on the role of the police (especially long term).
Probably one of Terry Pratchett's Watchmen quotes. And I'm inclined to agree with it, but I hardly think it applies to deploying a few thousand soldiers at high profile sites for a few days when there appears to be a known risk. The Rise of Facism it ain't.
No I don't think it was from there (mainly because I've never read or watched anything by T Pratchett, not because of any lack of wanting to, just not enough time). It's more how they were used and whether the government might take their successful deployment as a green light to do it again - slow creep of what is acceptable. Remove more police officers use the military more often in times of crisis for protecting states buildings and so on. Most of the buildings recently being protected were 'state' buildings (so Buckingham Place, Downing Street, Sellafield and so on). This was on the basis that police officers could be redeployed whilst immediately putting the protection of state assets into military hands. The military didn't really do that much to protect the 'populace' and wouldn't have been needed if the police were funded better. Now take a situation in 5 years time when the Tories continue to run down the police and then bring in a new poll tax starting a new wave of riots. The police can't deal with the situation so the military is brought in again (because it worked last time) and at that point you really do have the situation where the populace could become the enemy. It's fine using the army to undertake specialist roles (for example bomb disposal) but to have them undertake general policing is not something that should be encouraged (or really accepted as it only highlights problems with existing policing infrastructure).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: Surely more police leads to more crimes being found? In that they can't just sit and twiddle their thumbs?
More acts being made criminal maybe?
it's more likely that more minor acts will be taken action against. As you reduce numbers only the more serious of crimes will be dealt with because they are the priority. Things like flytipping, driving whilst using a hand held mobile phone etc will be passed on to other bodies that have much less powers to investigate (as has happened in the flytipping case).
The time has long since past thr local constable with his shirt, revolver put the police safe and maybe bob with a lee Enfield who does shooting on weekend will cut it any longer.
Armed police are out there as a message that people know they exist, they are protecting them.
OK so a name an event where armed police 'on the beat' has been useful for preventing a crime that could not have otherwise been done by an unarmed police officer (including with tasers). Specified task forces to deal with circumstances are fine, but armed street patrols? - it's not like the UK is a hot bed of people all toting guns at their hips.
We deployed a lot of troops in security at the Olympics, after the triumphant success of private industry in providing several thousand fewer security guards than they had contracted for.
The soldiers stood alongside the Games Makes, a dismal failure of social organisation, providing only many thousands of well-trained friendly volunteers.
This combination was a huge part of the success of making the event one of the friendliest of modern times.
Kilkrazy wrote: We deployed a lot of troops in security at the Olympics, after the triumphant success of private industry in providing several thousand fewer security guards than they had contracted for.
The soldiers stood alongside the Games Makes, a dismal failure of social organisation, providing only many thousands of well-trained friendly volunteers.
This combination was a huge part of the success of making the event one of the friendliest of modern times.
Yet the Army was better greeted by public, calm, effective and the public trusted them far more than the G4S to be honest.
they did it on short notice, with little time to prepare yet still, it was perfectly safe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote:
The time has long since past thr local constable with his shirt, revolver put the police safe and maybe bob with a lee Enfield who does shooting on weekend will cut it any longer.
Armed police are out there as a message that people know they exist, they are protecting them.
OK so a name an event where armed police 'on the beat' has been useful for preventing a crime that could not have otherwise been done by an unarmed police officer (including with tasers). Specified task forces to deal with circumstances are fine, but armed street patrols? - it's not like the UK is a hot bed of people all toting guns at their hips.
while we may not be the wild west they make a key symbol, and more a message that the UK is protected.
plus, while true, i doubt many criminals are gonna risk confronting a armed officer, so that point is kinda different.
its mostly symbolic to be honest, but that matters alot.
I can't recall where I heard the quote but once I read/heard a statement that the role of the police is to protect the people. The role of the military is to kill the enemies of the state.
I'd suggest that an armed terrorist *is* an enemy of the state.
In other news, it's good to see troops coming off the streets on Monday. IMO, it was an overreaction, completely against the British spirit of liberty, and another step into turning us into a Banana Republic.
See, the fact they came off the streets so fast actually reinforces my belief in the system. They announced critical status. They did what they needed to do to defuse whatever was clearly going on behind the scenes. Then they repealed it. No fuss, no dragging it out as a state of emergency. It makes me more inclined to believe in it next time, to be honest.
True...if we were Turkey for Instance the troops would still be on the streets well into the general election and beyond.
I find the levels of dread over Soldiers On British Streets! Armed Bobbys On The Beat! mildly hilarious. But then, I grew up with that sort of nonsense.
The British Army is very well versed in policing British streets. It just generally happened on the other side of the Irish Sea. Sometimes it worked reasonably well.. sometimes less so.
Graphite wrote: I find the levels of dread over Soldiers On British Streets! Armed Bobbys On The Beat! mildly hilarious. But then, I grew up with that sort of nonsense.
The British Army is very well versed in policing British streets. It just generally happened on the other side of the Irish Sea. Sometimes it worked reasonably well.. sometimes less so.
Also in this case the police where in command of Army armed support, over all making sure things where smoothly done.
Kilkrazy wrote: We deployed a lot of troops in security at the Olympics, after the triumphant success of private industry in providing several thousand fewer security guards than they had contracted for.
The soldiers stood alongside the Games Makes, a dismal failure of social organisation, providing only many thousands of well-trained friendly volunteers.
This combination was a huge part of the success of making the event one of the friendliest of modern times.
This is different. This was to provide security because of a failing of the private contractor but didn't take over the role of the police (who were still responsible for arresting, investigating and prosecuting). The role of the military recently was to be the police around state controlled assets.
I'd suggest that an armed terrorist *is* an enemy of the state.
But they weren't deployed in that way at all (for example bomb disposal etc). The point is that if the government get more confident in using the military to fill shortages in policing that they have generated then you have the increasing chance that the military will at some point be opposing the general populace (e.g. poll tax riots or whatever). At that point you have a situation where the populace can become the enemy and the military are trained to use lethal overwhelming force. The Police and military are kept separate for important reasons as previously discussed.
In other news it appears that the government are now making up their own evidence over grammar schools to try and justify them.
They are now claiming in their manifesto that evidence suggests that the poorest students are not discriminated against in a grammar school system. The way they evidence this? By excluding the poorest students from the figures... .
For the last 20 years, ever since that idiot Blair took office, there has been a creeping sense of authoritarianism infecting British society.
Draconian surveillance laws are introduced, creeping in bit by bit, and the police and the security services get sweeping powers to meddle in our lives and spy on us.
Naturally, all this is down under the guise of keeping us 'safe'.
Local councils spy on the contents of our wheely bins, and we as the British public, are constantly lectured on what we should and shouldn't eat, and of course, we're not trusted to raise our children without the state wagging a finger at us...
And then troops take to the streets, troops that swear an oath of allegiance not to the British people, but to the relic of the Middle Ages, our monarch.
And people think this assault upon our liberty is normal. It was a grotesque overreaction, highly politicised in the middle of a General Election campaign, and by rights, the idea of troops being deployed on our streets should have been laughed out of town.
But we accept that as normal, and that's the tragedy, because as Whirlwind rightly points out, what if we have a big riot like the poll tax riots?
Are the army going to face down the British public?
That path leads to madness. We are far too complacent with our civil liberties these days.
Government should be at the public's feet, not its throat.
Whirlwind wrote: ...But they weren't deployed in that way at all (for example bomb disposal etc). The point is that if the government get more confident in using the military to fill shortages in policing that they have generated then you have the increasing chance that the military will at some point be opposing the general populace (e.g. poll tax riots or whatever). At that point you have a situation where the populace can become the enemy and the military are trained to use lethal overwhelming force. The Police and military are kept separate for important reasons as previously discussed...
I'd just like to point out, as a member of the military for nearly 20 years, that we do currently have armed guards at nearly every military base in the country and have done so for years. Our Rules of engagement are very, very strict, and are amended regularly to fit current UK law. However, it is made very clear to us that the use of lethal force is only to be deployed as a very last resort and that we are compelled to use the minimum force necessary, whether that's a shout, or physical restraint. We are also not immune from prosecution, and that we will be held fully accountable for our actions.
As to the deployment of troops to assist the police in times of national emergency, it is clear that the civil police would have lead authority, and all service personnel would be subordinate to them. We are very different services, we work in very different environments and the police are specifically trained to do their job, much better than we could. I am convinced that the Manchester bombing was a direct result of the cuts to police resources.
She was warned 2 years ago that this might happen, and dismissed the concerns as scaremongering in order to continue with ideologically driven austerity cuts.
The conservatives policies have split the nation, threatened the stability of our union with Scotland and Ireland, have targeted the poorest, damaged our international standing, increased the debt, damaged our biggest trade agreement, compromised the safety of our people, and sold our infrastructure to foreign states.
The fact that people still vote for these people absolutely boggles my mind. It is only the hostility of the media to any alternative, thanks to foreign billionaires like murdoch, that keep people from voting for anyone else.
As a complete aside from anything else you were saying there r_squared, I really, really , really do not get why people keep holding this against the Tories. It was mathematically inevitable. Practically every single government bar John Major's one at the end has run a deficit, and the operational deficit was so high after Brown left power that Cameron/May couldn't have eliminated it without effectively killing the economy for a decade through cuts so vicious there'd have been riots.
Yet I keep seeing it everywhere. 'You can't trust the Tories, they've raised the national debt!' 'They say Labour is bad? What a joke! Look at how much more debt has accumulated under the Tories'. etcetc
I keep seeing it as a soundbyte, and every time I do, I just look at it and go, 'Well yeah. But what was the alternative?' And funnily enough, not one person beating the Tories with that (somewhat imaginary) stick has turned to me and said that taxes should have been vastly increased or much more heavy cuts made.
I get your frustration at the Tories r_squared, but speaking as a still undecided voter? Anyone chucking out that line completely undermines themselves in trying to convince me one way or t'other because it tells me they're either not looking at it dispassionately or don't understand literally the first thing about economics/government finances. Which for me, makes me wonder what else they're saying is poorly sourced/understood.
As a complete aside from anything else you were saying there r_squared, I really, really , really do not get why people keep holding this against the Tories. It was mathematically inevitable. Practically every single government bar John Major's one at the end has run a deficit, and the operational deficit was so high after Brown left power that Cameron/May couldn't have eliminated it without effectively killing the economy for a decade through cuts so vicious there'd have been riots.
Yet I keep seeing it everywhere. 'You can't trust the Tories, they've raised the national debt!' 'They say Labour is bad? What a joke! Look at how much more debt has accumulated under the Tories'. etcetc
I keep seeing it as a soundbyte, and every time I do, I just look at it and go, 'Well yeah. But what was the alternative?' And funnily enough, not one person beating the Tories with that (somewhat imaginary) stick has turned to me and said that taxes should have been vastly increased or much more heavy cuts made.
I get your frustration at the Tories r_squared, but speaking as a still undecided voter? Anyone chucking out that line completely undermines themselves in trying to convince me one way or t'other because it tells me they're either not looking at it dispassionately or don't understand literally the first thing about economics/government finances. Which for me, makes me wonder what else they're saying is poorly sourced/understood.
Because it's the one thing the Tories hang their hat on, apparent fiscal responsibility. There are options to dealing with debt, and they chose austerity. Not increasing tax receipts or promoting growth, but cuts to vital and essential services.
Debt needs to be dealt with by increasing growth, productivity, tax receipts and cuts, if you consider servicing the debt to be so vital. But just like a mortgage, sensible debt can be managed properly. The conservatives have failed to realistically challenge the one thing that is central to their core support. Their chosen method of dealing with this has utterly failed, yet still they persist.
Now, with Brexit, it almost doesn't matter who gets in, because the economy is going to take a pounding, and tweaks here and there are not going to cut it. The conservatives know this, they have made a huge blunder with Brexit, and are looking for someone else to take the blame and try and sort it out. How else can we explain their utterly terrible campaign?
I mentioned before that I think the Tories have self sabotaged in order to get out of taking the heat. I'll be voting Labour, but tbh if the conservatives pull this off and get in which I still think they will, I won't be devastated, they will have to take complete ownership for the coming problems.
Besides, if your only objection to voting against the Tories, is the use of one phrase concerning debt, rather than all the myriad other serious issues, then perhaps your mind is already made up?
I can't be the only person that keeps on hearing the phrase, "lives in country X for 6 months of the year for tax purposes" when it comes to various local high earners (eg business owners).
Because it's the one thing the Tories hang their hat on, apparent fiscal responsibility. There are options to dealing with debt, and they chose austerity. Not increasing tax receipts or promoting growth, but cuts to vital and essential services.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but you -seem- to be saying that the logical way of completely eliminating the national debt was to somehow borrow lots more to invest in growth projects and hope that it would generate enough in tax receipts to pay for:-
1) the additional debt caused from this money borrowed and the resulting interest,
2) the entire operating deficit of the government (so that they can stop borrowing), and
3) a little bit more on the top to put a dent in the national debt.
What sorts of projects do you think could be invested in which bring in those (hundreds of billions) of additional tax revenue? What's more, it would have to do it within a year or two as well, or we'd be in a position whereby the National Debt would still have gone up, and you'd still be able to say the same thing about the Tories.
Their chosen method of dealing with this has utterly failed, yet still they persist.
I don't think it's 'failed', per se. They've brought expenditure down, which means less is being borrowed. Whether it succeeded is a different question, and whether it was a good idea more holistically a third one altogether, but that's because economics doesn't tend to result in zero sum 'success/failure' stories.
Besides, if your only objection to voting against the Tories, is the use of one phrase concerning debt, rather than all the myriad other serious issues, then perhaps your mind is already made up?
Errr....'only'? Mate, I picked out one thing you said, because I've been seeing it a lot, and that one thing specifically irritates me as a seeming absurdity. Like I said, unless you're inclined towards cuts three times as harsh or a vast tax hike, the national debt was mathematically guaranteed to increase for reasons which had little to do with the Tories. There are so many rocks sitting there in a pile to lob at the Tories, it just baffles me that people feel the need to go and make fake ones.
As a complete aside from anything else you were saying there r_squared, I really, really , really do not get why people keep holding this against the Tories. It was mathematically inevitable. Practically every single government bar John Major's one at the end has run a deficit, and the operational deficit was so high after Brown left power that Cameron/May couldn't have eliminated it without effectively killing the economy for a decade through cuts so vicious there'd have been riots.
Yet I keep seeing it everywhere. 'You can't trust the Tories, they've raised the national debt!' 'They say Labour is bad? What a joke! Look at how much more debt has accumulated under the Tories'. etcetc
I keep seeing it as a soundbyte, and every time I do, I just look at it and go, 'Well yeah. But what was the alternative?' And funnily enough, not one person beating the Tories with that (somewhat imaginary) stick has turned to me and said that taxes should have been vastly increased or much more heavy cuts made.
I get your frustration at the Tories r_squared, but speaking as a still undecided voter? Anyone chucking out that line completely undermines themselves in trying to convince me one way or t'other because it tells me they're either not looking at it dispassionately or don't understand literally the first thing about economics/government finances. Which for me, makes me wonder what else they're saying is poorly sourced/understood.
Wow, I'm not the only one who's noticed this!
I mean, not liking austerity is one thing, but not liking austerity and protesting that debt is still too high is just counter intuitive. Getting the deficit down was the goal, and it has mostly worked. Of course not without cost.
Ah goody, more endless roundabout circling on debt & deficit. Pointing out Tory hypocrisy on their "fiscally responsible" narrative is perhaps satisfying, but you're still holding the debate on their terms.
That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder. No wiggling, no weaselling; you are willingly endorsing policies that are provably killing the sick & disabled. If you try and claim you support other Tory policies but not those ones, you are saying our lives are a price worth paying for those other policies. I don't even think I could come up with words to describe my feelings for informed Tory voters these days if I were posting somewhere like 4Chan, nevermind within the rules of this forum.
Stop allowing Tories to steer the debate into fiscal minutiae and demand they face up to the practical, murderous impact of the policies they have enacted, are enacting, and intend to enact.
I would just like to point out, that telling people that they are scum for voting a certain way is exactly how you cause even bigger rifts between people and cause them to turn even more extreme.
So don't do it, seriously. It's not how you win over potential voters.
welshhoppo wrote: I would just like to point out, that telling people that they are scum for voting a certain way is exactly how you cause even bigger rifts between people and cause them to turn even more extreme.
So don't do it, seriously. It's not how you win over potential voters.
welshhoppo wrote: I would just like to point out, that telling people that they are scum for voting a certain way is exactly how you cause even bigger rifts between people and cause them to turn even more extreme.
So don't do it, seriously. It's not how you win over potential voters.
Indeed, thats one of the reasons why Trump won.
People keep saying this...while ignoring that he and his supporters were and have been doing the exact same thing all along, except without a policy basis upon which to make such a judgement
welshhoppo wrote: I would just like to point out, that telling people that they are scum for voting a certain way is exactly how you cause even bigger rifts between people and cause them to turn even more extreme.
So don't do it, seriously. It's not how you win over potential voters.
Indeed, thats one of the reasons why Trump won.
People keep saying this...while ignoring that he and his supporters were and have been doing the exact same thing all along, except without a policy basis upon which to make such a judgement
I'd drop this line of discussion as US politics ist verboten.
May does appear to be campaigning like someone who is only running for class president because her mom said she has to.
I'd just like to point out, as a member of the military for nearly 20 years, that we do currently have armed guards at nearly every military base in the country and have done so for years. Our Rules of engagement are very, very strict, and are amended regularly to fit current UK law. However, it is made very clear to us that the use of lethal force is only to be deployed as a very last resort and that we are compelled to use the minimum force necessary, whether that's a shout, or physical restraint. We are also not immune from prosecution, and that we will be held fully accountable for our actions.
That's fine. But you still don't want your military to be your police force. That introduces a conflict of interest and raises the possibility (I'm not saying it is now) that the military can come to view the populace as the 'enemy' at times of extreme stress. There's a reason the entities are kept separate. For example you've already pointed out one notable difference. Using lethal force is at the discretion of the soldier (with potential consequences if they get it wrong); for the police it lies with the commanding officer and only they can give the authorisation to use lethal force.
Because it's the one thing the Tories hang their hat on, apparent fiscal responsibility. There are options to dealing with debt, and they chose austerity. Not increasing tax receipts or promoting growth, but cuts to vital and essential services.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but you -seem- to be saying that the logical way of completely eliminating the national debt was to somehow borrow lots more to invest in growth projects and hope that it would generate enough in tax receipts to pay for:-
1) the additional debt caused from this money borrowed and the resulting interest,
2) the entire operating deficit of the government (so that they can stop borrowing), and
3) a little bit more on the top to put a dent in the national debt.
What sorts of projects do you think could be invested in which bring in those (hundreds of billions) of additional tax revenue? What's more, it would have to do it within a year or two as well, or we'd be in a position whereby the National Debt would still have gone up, and you'd still be able to say the same thing about the Tories.
The fact that they only tried cuts? They also cut taxes,
Almost guaranteeing that the defect will continue to rise. What exactly are they trying to do here? Because to many it would seem they are robbing the poor, to feed the rich.
If they really wanted to bring down the debt, they certainly could have done, but their ideology of tax cuts scuppered any chance.
Their chosen method of dealing with this has utterly failed, yet still they persist.
I don't think it's 'failed', per se. They've brought expenditure down, which means less is being borrowed. Whether it succeeded is a different question, and whether it was a good idea more holistically a third one altogether, but that's because economics doesn't tend to result in zero sum 'success/failure' stories.
They've brought expenditure down, but also reduced the ability to pay of the outstanding debt because they have willingly reduced the government's income. Most conservative friends and colleagues I know argue that handling the debt and fiscal responsibility is why they vote conservative.
Besides, if your only objection to voting against the Tories, is the use of one phrase concerning debt, rather than all the myriad other serious issues, then perhaps your mind is already made up?
Errr....'only'? Mate, I picked out one thing you said, because I've been seeing it a lot, and that one thing specifically irritates me as a seeming absurdity. Like I said, unless you're inclined towards cuts three times as harsh or a vast tax hike, the national debt was mathematically guaranteed to increase for reasons which had little to do with the Tories. There are so many rocks sitting there in a pile to lob at the Tories, it just baffles me that people feel the need to go and make fake ones.
There's no fake rocks in my pile. The conservatives have failed on the economy, the supposed bastion that makes people vote for them. After Brexit, everyone will see exactly how bad they are managing the economy and governing the UK, because things are about to get a whole lot worse.
Personally, I'm win win at the moment. If a labour based coalition get it, then I'm happy because I believe in renationalisation of infrastructure and fair taxation, if the conservatives get in, then we get to watch the train wreck that will destroy their reputation, as economically sound, perhaps indefinitely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: ...That's fine. But you still don't want your military to be your police force...
Couldn't agree more. No one in the military, apart from maybe military police, want to be police officers. I have friends in the Met, and I do not envy their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...And then troops take to the streets, troops that swear an oath of allegiance not to the British people, but to the relic of the Middle Ages, our monarch...
Which, in my mind, is for the best. We are not the tool of Govt, but an apolitical head of state. Thats preferable surely?
You can't spend more to decrease the debt when the debt was that high.
If we were down a few hundred million a year we could have probably done it. But not with the levels of debt Blair and Brown left us.
it would be fairer to state that it was the debt the banks left us with. *Before* the financial collapse the level of debt under Blair and Brown was less (slightly) than what they were given by the Tories left Labour to deal with. For all intents and purposes it was the same.
The real debt and interest came from bailing out the banks and the UKs approach at the time was seen as generally positive noting for example a Novel prize winner for economics (Paul Krugman) stated that "Mr Brown and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up."; and "Luckily for the world economy,... Gordon Brown and his officials are making sense,... And they may have shown us the way through this crisis." It did leave us with a long term debt issue though and how that was recovered.
The question is whether the Tories would have done anything differently and the answer to this is probably not. The alternative would have been to let the banks fail just like any other business which although we wouldn't have a debt mountain would have likely generated other issues (for example what would have happened to mortgages if the creditors came calling?). However the debt because of the banking collapse as an issue for not voting Labour is rather questionable given what other alternatives there were.
The only real flaw was the deregulation of the banking checks but that was an international issue not just UK based (and the fear that they would leave if we didn't keep up deregulating) and ignoring growing warning signs that we were heading for a cliff edge (high levels of populace debt, low capital mortgages, housing market overheating). We've not really learnt much here though because the same things are happening again.
The real question now is how you support removing the debt. As it stands the lowest 1% pay 40%ish of their income of taxes and the highest earners 30% of their income and this is an effect of Tory policy. In addition public services, NHS, social care, state education that the poorest rely on more are being ever further squeezed by Tory cuts whilst the wealthiest and the banks continue to prosper (or most of them anyway). Take the example of Lloyds, we took over state ownership but sold the stake only recovering the initial debt and not the interest it accrued. The state could easily have held onto it for longer and taken the share of profits to pay off some of the interest. Instead the UK plc effectively took over a debt ridden bank, made it 'safe' and then sold it back onto the same people (generically) at the same cost. Effectively then the banking sector got to wipe the slate clean but without paying the consequences of previous mismanagement (which is now held by the UK populace). Again the Tories effectively transferred business debt to the UK populace.
These sort of practices are not likely to change with Tories still in charge. Despite everything Corbyn does seem interested in rebalancing society (although his it is by far too left in my view) and perhaps if he stays with his aims we could end up there. It would not be unreasonable for example that the poorest 1% only pay 30% of their income in taxes and the wealthiest 40%. Overall the tax income would be about the same but it does take some of the pressure of the poorest and most struggling in society and with a bit of tweaking may be even be able to fund public services better. Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)
That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.
If you voted Labour, you're also an accessory to murder by that logic, considering we went to war in two different countries with a reasonably small pretext under their rule. Or do soldiers and foreign civilians not count?
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems went into coalition when the first round of cuts started. So that must mean voting for them makes you an accessory to murder too, right? I'm essentially left voting Green as the only 'ethical' choice thinking like that. It's a terrible line of reasoning, and frankly? Every government usually kills people somewhere along the line, be it in war, policies, suicides from people locked up in jail, choosing not to fund a foreign aid policy that could help feed the poor in other countries, and so on.
You kind of have to accept that when you go to the polling booth, and take a more holistic view. The minute you start spitting venom and labelling the other side 'murderers' in anything that doesn't involve them literally shooting people, is the minute most people stop listening to your reason as to why they should vote a certain way.
For the record, Tory cuts on DSA are one of the main reasons I'm leery of them right now. But when I cast my vote, I need to be doing what I think is best for the country in many regards, not best for a specific group of people.
Almost guaranteeing that the defect will continue to rise. What exactly are they trying to do here? Because to many it would seem they are robbing the poor, to feed the rich.
If they really wanted to bring down the debt, they certainly could have done, but their ideology of tax cuts scuppered any chance.
That was an interesting link. But....did you read it? Because it actually contradicts the figure. It points out that whilst the figures are technically accurate, they omit a lot of other very relevant information. So for example:-
As an illustration, if you add up the estimated cost in 2021/22 of every cut to the main and small profits corporation tax rates since 2010, as Labour does, you get a £13 billion forfeit that year.
If you add in all the other changes to corporation tax you get a much smaller revenue reduction of around £0.6 billion.
So......yeah. With that in mind, are you now claiming that the national operating deficit would have been eliminated if they hadn't made those tax changes? Even given that your own link points out that the figures for that claim are misleading? I'll be honest, I'm having trouble nailing down precisely what your counterargument is here that means slamming the Tories over the fact the national debt increasing is justified. It seems to keep changing.
They've brought expenditure down, but also reduced the ability to pay of the outstanding debt because they have willingly reduced the government's income. Most conservative friends and colleagues I know argue that handling the debt and fiscal responsibility is why they vote conservative.
I suppose you have to look at these things in comparison to the alternatives. The Tories may well note be amazing at economics, but if the opposition are terrible (and looking at New Labour and Harold Wilson before them, there seems to be quite some justification for that), then 'mediocre' is still better than 'bad'.
There's no fake rocks in my pile. The conservatives have failed on the economy,
Did they? Inflation is under control. Interest rates aren't exactly skyrocketing.The pound is still quite valuable on the international exchange, businesses are still opening, growth is happening. Far as I can see, looking out the window, the economy is holding together reasonably well at the moment. Considering we're not even in recession, precisely what measure are you using to declare their 'failure'? Is there some metric? How much better does the economy need to be doing to not count as a 'failure' to you?
Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.
This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.
To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.
Kilkrazy wrote: Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.
This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.
To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.
And that's the problem. Whichever way Blair/Brown had gone would likely have been criticised because both were likely to lead to years of recession. So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public.
Personally I generally fall on the side of letting the banks go bust. Yes it would be painful but just like evolution sometimes you need a catastrophic event to remove the big hulking beasts to allow newer more flexible species to evolve and develop.
So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public
I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.
I was paying 20% of my income in taxes while I was employed. And was before national insurance (and road tax and v.a.t and so on and so forth). If it's good enough for me it's good enough for anyone. Somebody earning 150,000 would still take home 120,000 after 20% tax. They shouldn't dare complain about that.
And now that I'm self employed I'll endeavour to pay my fair share.
Kilkrazy wrote: Krugman may have applauded the banking bailout but another Nobel Economics prize winner, Stiglitz, said the govt. should have let the bankrupt banks go bankrupt like any other private business would have been.
This at least would have saved the country many billions of £ of bailout cash, though it might have caused other problems.
To be fair, I do believe that government support of private industry can be useful, even essential depending on circumstances, for example to preserve vital national interests and infrastructure. It's questionable whether banking falls into one of these categories.
And that's the problem. Whichever way Blair/Brown had gone would likely have been criticised because both were likely to lead to years of recession. So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public.
Personally I generally fall on the side of letting the banks go bust. Yes it would be painful but just like evolution sometimes you need a catastrophic event to remove the big hulking beasts to allow newer more flexible species to evolve and develop.
On paper its wonderfully painful. In the wild I wonder how many would actually be happy with such an event taking place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I was paying 20% of my income in taxes while I was employed. And was before national insurance (and road tax and v.a.t and so on and so forth). If it's good enough for me it's good enough for anyone. Somebody earning 150,000 would still take home 120,000 after 20% tax. They shouldn't dare complain about that.
And now that I'm self employed I'll endeavour to pay my fair share.
Self Employed too. I'll pay my fair share. I'll also make sure that what I take full advantage of breaks, exceptions and allowances.
Anybody been watching the Channel 4 leader's debate?
It was an eye opener to say the least.
It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights
Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?
Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?
Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.
I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.
To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...
Whirlwind wrote: Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)
I would like to know how earning £30k makes you 'wealthy'.
Because statistically speaking someone earning above £30k is in the top 35-30% of earners in the country. The percentiles are staggeringly skewed when you get above this amount. Compare to this to someone who is in the bottom 1% (less than about £10.5k). 40% of the population (approx.) needs to work for two years before they earn what someone on £30k (approx.) earns in one.
So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public
I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.
This time Ketata I wasn't referencing you you'll be glad to know - I do appreciate you have other issues with their tenure!
It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights
Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?
Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?
Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.
I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.
To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...
How the feth did it come to this?
Correction. There was a leadership contest properly.
It was genuine.
Only her opposite was caught lieing and had to rightfully give up her campaign.
They chose two candidates, they did start one only well.
It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights
Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?
Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?
Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.
I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.
To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...
How the feth did it come to this?
Yeah May looked really uncomfortable especially at the beginning until she managed to get into the nonsense mantra she spouts without substance. She did give some very angry stares at members of the public who asked 'awkward' questions. The public question on the NHS really was a shocker - basically yes we are going to cut the NHS further because we haven't got the economy (allegedly).
Corbyn did alright. His response to the small business (rich by the seems of things given his favouring of zero hours contracts and sends his children to private schools) member of the public question was particularly impressive and passionate. He actually made me believe that he believed in what he was saying and it wasn't party propaganda.
In the end most disappointing person was Paxman though. He jumped all over Corbyn and never really let him finish answering the question, stopped him at times after the first sentence especially at the beginning. With May he was a lot more laid back and just let waffle on and only then just reiterated the same question (though he kept doing that with Corbyn as well). It gave the impression that he was much more favourable to May because he didn't try and talk all over her. Also most of his questions were just dumb. Andrew Neil would have been much better host and asking more pointed questions. The public asked better questions than Paxman.
It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights
Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?
Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?
Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.
I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.
To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...
How the feth did it come to this?
Correction. There was a leadership contest properly.
It was genuine.
Only her opposite was caught lieing and had to rightfully give up her campaign.
They chose two candidates, they did start one only well.
May just won it sooner than thought.
It was a sham of a leadership contest. One of the worst I've ever seen. Tory grassroots didn't even get a chance to cast a vote for anybody.
It's been said before, but I know now why they wanted to keep May away from the public: she's like a rabbit in the headlights
Which begs the question: why the dakka is she involved in politics, given that interaction with the voting public is part of the job description?
Corbyn did himself no harm, but May?
Strong and stable really is a bad joke. She looks very uncomfortable and ill at ease in situations which should be meat and drink to any half decent politician.
I think the problem stems from the fact that there was no Tory leadership contest. A proper, no holds barred, campaign, might have seen her flaws spotted sooner.
To sum up, we have a Prime Minister who is scared of the public, a complete moron for a foreign secretary, and Jeremy Hunt responsible for this nation's health service...and a Marxist waiting in the wings to look after the nation's money should Labour triumph...
How the feth did it come to this?
Yeah May looked really uncomfortable especially at the beginning until she managed to get into the nonsense mantra she spouts without substance. She did give some very angry stares at members of the public who asked 'awkward' questions. The public question on the NHS really was a shocker - basically yes we are going to cut the NHS further because we haven't got the economy (allegedly).
Corbyn did alright. His response to the small business (rich by the seems of things given his favouring of zero hours contracts and sends his children to private schools) member of the public question was particularly impressive and passionate. He actually made me believe that he believed in what he was saying and it wasn't party propaganda.
In the end most disappointing person was Paxman though. He jumped all over Corbyn and never really let him finish answering the question, stopped him at times after the first sentence especially at the beginning. With May he was a lot more laid back and just let waffle on and only then just reiterated the same question (though he kept doing that with Corbyn as well). It gave the impression that he was much more favourable to May because he didn't try and talk all over her. Also most of his questions were just dumb. Andrew Neil would have been much better host and asking more pointed questions. The public asked better questions than Paxman.
Yeah, Paxman had a shocker - he's not the Paxman of old. Thing is, though, even with soft soap questions, May was still struggling, which speaks volumes.
I still think Middle England will hold its nose and vote in May, but talk of a landslide is dead and buried.
Whirlwind wrote: Yes the wealthy (i.e. £30K + group would have to pay more tax) but is that necessarily a bad thing?)
I would like to know how earning £30k makes you 'wealthy'.
Because statistically speaking someone earning above £30k is in the top 35-30% of earners in the country. The percentiles are staggeringly skewed when you get above this amount. Compare to this to someone who is in the bottom 1% (less than about £10.5k). 40% of the population (approx.) needs to work for two years before they earn what someone on £30k (approx.) earns in one.
So when some people are overly critical of Brown/Blair it shows a lack of understanding that whatever route had been taken would likely lead to problems of one form or another and it is questionable whether any politician would have done anything that would not have damned them in the eyes of the public
I'm very critical of them, but I base that off of factors other than the crash.
This time Ketata I wasn't referencing you you'll be glad to know - I do appreciate you have other issues with their tenure!
Sure, but I sure as heck wasn't wealthy when I was earning above £30k. I would argue that it doesn't even scrape whatever is considered to be middle class (it really doesnt). Ask the average earner at that level and they have some security, but they have the same financial worries as anyone below them on the wage scale.
30k would be comfortable if you lived like you earned half of that.
Almost guaranteeing that the defect will continue to rise. What exactly are they trying to do here? Because to many it would seem they are robbing the poor, to feed the rich.
If they really wanted to bring down the debt, they certainly could have done, but their ideology of tax cuts scuppered any chance.
That was an interesting link. But....did you read it? Because it actually contradicts the figure. It points out that whilst the figures are technically accurate, they omit a lot of other very relevant information. So for example:-
As an illustration, if you add up the estimated cost in 2021/22 of every cut to the main and small profits corporation tax rates since 2010, as Labour does, you get a £13 billion forfeit that year.
If you add in all the other changes to corporation tax you get a much smaller revenue reduction of around £0.6 billion.
So......yeah. With that in mind, are you now claiming that the national operating deficit would have been eliminated if they hadn't made those tax changes? Even given that your own link points out that the figures for that claim are misleading? I'll be honest, I'm having trouble nailing down precisely what your counterargument is here that means slamming the Tories over the fact the national debt increasing is justified. It seems to keep changing.
I'm not claiming the defect would have been eliminated, simply that the conservatives don't appear to be attempting to reduce the debt in any meaningful way apart from in ideologically driven cuts. They haven't utilised tax rises to tackle the defecit, which that link shows, and in fact have slightly lowered taxes. It strikes me that having high debt, whilst doing nothing to actually tackle it plays into their ideology about cutting welfare and state controlled infrastructure.
If they really wanted to do something about the debt, they could have done, but they haven't and it plays to their audience, because all we hear is how we can't afford anything, as if the UK is somehow broke.
They've brought expenditure down, but also reduced the ability to pay of the outstanding debt because they have willingly reduced the government's income. Most conservative friends and colleagues I know argue that handling the debt and fiscal responsibility is why they vote conservative.
I suppose you have to look at these things in comparison to the alternatives. The Tories may well note be amazing at economics, but if the opposition are terrible (and looking at New Labour and Harold Wilson before them, there seems to be quite some justification for that), then 'mediocre' is still better than 'bad'.
It depends on whether you believe the economy is the only reason to vote, besides, there is a myth that surround Labour that it is more fiscally profligate than the conservatives, and that is not true,
There's no fake rocks in my pile. The conservatives have failed on the economy,
Did they? Inflation is under control. Interest rates aren't exactly skyrocketing.The pound is still quite valuable on the international exchange, businesses are still opening, growth is happening. Far as I can see, looking out the window, the economy is holding together reasonably well at the moment. Considering we're not even in recession, precisely what measure are you using to declare their 'failure'? Is there some metric? How much better does the economy need to be doing to not count as a 'failure' to you?
By their own actions, the pound has been devalued, inflation is rising and interest rates are currently being held artificially low by the BoE but will eventually have to rise, wages are stagnant, meaning lowering of standards in real terms and we have food banks. If the economy is OK, why are people having to get free food from charity?
It might not be abject failure, but it's definitely not a success. They've had 7 years, and we're being constantly squeezed so much we've forgotten what it's like to not live under this pressure. You might be lucky enough to not feel the effects, but many in this country are.
Yodhrin wrote: That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.
Continue making remarks like that and I'll vote Tory just to spite you.
<Edgelord.gif>
How's about we all chill a bit? Corbyn isn't gonna usher in a the Glorious Communist Republic of Britain, and May isn't gonna turn all the poor into Soylent Green.
If you voted labour after 2003 then you supported the iraq war and all the death and destruction and instability it caused. See how stupid statements like that become?
Yodhrin wrote: That is important. That is the narrative that needs to be front and centre: if you vote Tory, you are an accessory to murder.
Continue making remarks like that and I'll vote Tory just to spite you.
<Edgelord.gif>
How's about we all chill a bit? Corbyn isn't gonna usher in a the Glorious Communist Republic of Britain, and May isn't gonna turn all the poor into Soylent Green.
But the daily mail told me... Corbyn is communism reborn and will usher in a age where we unite with thr great communist nation North Korea.
I'm not claiming the defect would have been eliminated, simply that the conservatives don't appear to be attempting to reduce the debt in any meaningful way apart from in ideologically driven cuts. They haven't utilised tax rises to tackle the defecit, which that link shows, and in fact have slightly lowered taxes. It strikes me that having high debt, whilst doing nothing to actually tackle it plays into their ideology about cutting welfare and state controlled infrastructure.
So to clarify, your problem isn't that the Tories have accumulated debt? It's that they've accumulated debt whilst cutting the areas you disagree with and not taxing the areas you think should be taxed?
See, I have no issue with that if it is the case, because that's ultimately an opinion, which is perfectly valid to have. But frankly, it's an opinion to which the national debt level itself is almost irrelevant, it's more a protestation at general Tory fiscal policy than any sort of commentary on the operational deficit/national debt.
If everyone who keeps saying 'National debt has continued to accumulate under the Tories', actually said, 'The Tories aren't reducing the operational deficit by fiscal measures I approve of', I'd quite happily pass over it. It's perfectly possible to disagree on what should be cut to pay for the deficit.
My own personal opinion is that the cuts which could be made and taxes levied which would have been politically palatable to the majority are really quite far and few between, would never have accumulated even close to enough dosh to cover the operational deficit, and we'd have ended up here regardless. But that's just my opinion at the end of the day, I haven't costed it, I'm just working off what I know of economics. I could be completely wrong. Conversely, everyone who says the opposite could be wrong. C'est la vie.
It depends on whether you believe the economy is the only reason to vote, besides, there is a myth that surround Labour that it is more fiscally profligate than the conservatives, and that is not true,
With all due respect, the author looks to be a Labour stooge who's spent the last few months campaigning for them online. A brief scan through that link showed it to have the structural composition of a very holey Swiss cheese.
For example, he jumps straight off comparing the average deficit/surplus to proudly announce that Labour has had on average a higher surplus in any given year than a Tory institution. But anyone with half an ounce of contextual economic knowledge is fully aware that that's because the Tories handed Blair a massive smegging surplus with an economy primed for excellent growth the minute he came into power. All of Thatcher's cuts and economic repositioning drove the New Labour boom of 1997-2002. Brown was rolling in surplus tax receipts before he'd learnt what room his office was in at the Treasury. (I exaggerate slightly, but not as much as you'd think)
But naturally, the author doesn't mention that bit, because it might detract from his (slightly poor) rhetoric.
He also very conveniently moves his dates around depending on the data he's examining. For example, he starts assessing the level of net debt as a share of GDP well after Wilson had to go cap in hand to IMF, but drags it further back to incorporate that period when it suits him. He mentions how debt level interest repayments peaked under a Tory government in '79, but omits the fact that the Tory Government had literally just got into power at that point and was dealing with the debt accumulated by the prior Labour administration.
Seriously, that article is a masterpiece in cunningly spun statistics to give impressions that aren't true. If you haven't a huge amount of contextual knowledge, it looks very convincing, but it quickly falls apart once you apply that knowledge and can see the holes.
Labour Governments have always stood for a large state apparatus which is far more involved in every aspect of their citizen's lives, and inevitably costs more money to run than a smaller government who just wants to sit back and count the taxes. Both have flaws and both have advantages, but anyone who tries to tell you a much larger more active government costs the same as a smaller inactive one to run is twisting the truth somewhere. All those highly involved Nordic states require much higher general taxation for a reason, y'know?
By their own actions, the pound has been devalued, inflation is rising and interest rates are currently being held artificially low by the BoE but will eventually have to rise,
You mean Brexit? I know Cameron agreed to hold the referendum, but I'm not sure you can blame him for the way people voted. That is, ultimately, what caused Brexit and the subsequent currency issues.
wages are stagnant, meaning lowering of standards in real terms
The economy can be doing perfectly well and still have wage stagnation. Those are two separate concepts, really.
If the economy is OK, why are people having to get free food from charity?
Because economics and people with no money have surprisingly little in common.
It might not be abject failure, but it's definitely not a success. They've had 7 years, and we're being constantly squeezed so much we've forgotten what it's like to not live under this pressure. You might be lucky enough to not feel the effects, but many in this country are.
I'm from a working class family, and until a few years ago, was at the very bottom of the wage pile(minimum). So I'm fully aware of what it's like down there.
I think to be honest, as I said a few years ago, this Tory Government have effectively played caretaker. Nothing particularly imaginative. They screwed some vulnerable people over (the disabled) but some other vulnerable people (the pensioners) have done quite well out of them. The economy isn't in recession, but it isn't growing very fast either. In truth, I'm not sure that's even necessarily a Tory problem, Japan hit it a long time ago. So I'd agree with that. They haven't been a failure particularly, but nor have they been overly successful. Mediocrity is the watchword.
Sure, but I sure as heck wasn't wealthy when I was earning above £30k. I would argue that it doesn't even scrape whatever is considered to be middle class (it really doesnt). Ask the average earner at that level and they have some security, but they have the same financial worries as anyone below them on the wage scale.
30k would be comfortable if you lived like you earned half of that.
Strictly speaking at £30k you are at the upper ends of the middle class in terms on 'pay'. 70% of the population earn less than this amount. Everyone thinks that they are struggling because most people live to 95% of their wages. My brother complains he has no money and the cost of football tickets etc. yet he earns over double this amount. He ignores the fact that after his pay rise he bought a new house (that's already needs repair work after a year...) got a £275k mortgage that swallows a fair chunk of the salary each month and still wants to buy designer clothes for him and his family etc. But because they find it hard to make ends meet doesn't mean they aren't wealthy, just that they aren't very sensible with money. By living to 95% of the income any slight increases in costs can have larger perceived impacts because one of those luxuries have to be dropped (for example a short holiday break each year). The same goes for those on £30k. Yes you can't afford as many pleasant things as you would like but you still get a choice as to where you live, that going to the pub for a few drinks isn't going to destroy you financially and that (in moderation) you can afford it. So at £30k you can afford to choose a decent part of your lifestyle (even if it isn't champagne parties every weekend). At 30k you are bringing in approx. £2,000 per month (excluding pensions). Assuming a decent house rent of say £700 (decent semi-urban semi detached house) + bills and decent food (say another £700) you still have a fair sized element of your salary left. You might choose to put some into a pension so you have a decent retirement, some savings for a house or a car, broadband and so on and then a small amount for personal luxuries. However it's far from being uncomfortable even if you do have to still balance the books.
Now compare this to someone in the bottom 1%. At £11,000 (and that's the top of the bracket) you are bringing in £900 per month. So the type of house you can afford to rent is much lower (lets say a terrace somewhere at £400 per month). Then bills/rates, lets says £300 per month (noting poorer houses are usually less energy efficient and so on). That leaves a about £200 for everything else including food. You might just be able to scrape by but it's far from luxurious living and if you are only part time (or living in the zero hour contract world) then really things are a struggle hence the increasing need for food banks and so forth.
If you earn £30k you are wealthy, it's the perception that you can't afford all you want that makes you feel as if you aren't compared to those earning 'more'. But simply put those in this bracket and above can easily afford to pay more tax, they might just have to make some more personal luxury reductions (so less 40k models for example). To take an example if everyone above £30k was taxed the value of one Stormsurge model each year then we would raise another £1bn in taxes.
I think to be honest, as I said a few years ago, this Tory Government have effectively played caretaker. Nothing particularly imaginative. They screwed some vulnerable people over (the disabled) but some other vulnerable people (the pensioners) have done quite well out of them. The economy isn't in recession, but it isn't growing very fast either. In truth, I'm not sure that's even necessarily a Tory problem, Japan hit it a long time ago. So I'd agree with that. They haven't been a failure particularly, but nor have they been overly successful. Mediocrity is the watchword.
I think stagnation is probably the best word for the UK economy now, with increasing personal debt I also don't think it will be too long until be hit recession again. Japan has the issue of an aging population, high wages and anti-migration policy and has been for some time. The UK has been able to mitigate and have considerable growth because the population has grown due to migration offsetting our aging workforce. That appears now to be in reverse as more people flee the shores (both UK and EU citizens according to latest figures) and it's starting to show in some sectors (building and farming especially).
The second week of the formal campaign saw a shift in the relative prominence of the two main parties in media coverage. In week 1, the Conservatives gained slightly more TV exposure and considerably more press coverage. By the end of week 2, Labour had accumulated a 7 percent advantage in TV appearances and gained parity in press coverage.
This marked shift is probably explained by the leaking and then formal launch of the Labour manifesto in the second week of sampling.
Overall, the Conservatives and Labour have commanded 71 percent of the appearances on TV and 85 percent in the press in coverage so far. The ‘two party squeeze’ in press and TV coverage tightened in week 2.
This dominance of the two main parties far exceeds their position at the same stage of the 2015 General Election. The Liberal Democrats, SNP, UKIP and the Greens have received consistently lower levels of coverage in the 2017 media campaign so far.
A further measure of Labour’s centrality to the news agenda in week 2 is Jeremy Corbyn’s appearance at the top of the list of most frequently reported political figures. Several other Labour representatives also climbed up the chart.
Our measures of the direction of press reporting of Labour show that a considerable majority of this coverage has been critical of the party and its manifesto.
The greatest proportion of this negativity occurred in the national newspapers with the largest circulations.
Aggregate levels of positive and negative press coverage of the Conservative party have nearly cancelled each other out.
Our breakdown of the levels of coverage in individual newspapers reveals nuances in their partisanship. The Sun and The Express have particularly emphasised attacking Labour. The Mail has been similarly hostile to Labour but has had more positive emphasis in their reporting of the Conservatives. The surplus of positive coverage in The Times for the Conservative party, exceeds the amount of negativity to Labour.
As a general trend, newspapers have focused more coverage on attacking the parties they disapprove of, than reporting positive issues connected to the parties they support.
Brexit has received lower levels of coverage in this second week.
The issue agendas of the press and TV remain very similar.
The issues upon which the Conservative party would prefer to campaign remain at the foreground of media debate.
The Labour party were more successful in getting their strong policy areas on social welfare and health onto the news agenda.
It's not going well at all for May at the moment is it. She's starting to look seriously out of her depth and simply doesn't have answers for direct questions. Given her ability to not be able to debate successfully issues I would have serious doubts about her ability to get any useful agreement with the EU and that she'll just leave completely throwing the UK to the winds.
It's starting to look like that we are going to end up exactly where we started but with Corbyn looking much more credible overall because he has seriously improved his game over the last couple of weeks.
Middle England marginals, that always decide General elections, know that May is hopeless.
Alas, you guys are underestimating decades of anti left, anti-socialism doctrine being pumped out by our right-wing media on a daily basis.
No matter how well Corbyn does, 10 days won't be enough to crack 10 decades of anti-left hostility.
Middle England will hold its nose, and reluctantly vote for May, giving her a comfortable working majority, but not the landslide predicted.
Edit: As somebody who has lived and worked in all parts of the UK (except Northern Ireland) I know what political differences and attitudes are like when comparing one part of the UK to another. The Scottish Highlands is light years away from the shires of England in political beliefs and attitudes.
I'm not saying shire folk are bad or anything, but they couldn't understand my political views, and I couldn't understand why they voted the way they did.
Casual loathing, and in built suspicion of anything remotely left-wing runs through these people like words in a stick of rock. Corbyn won't crack that. Never in a million years.
A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.
Future War Cultist wrote: A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.
He called Bin Ladens killing rather than being captured and tried in the US a tragedy. The way you've left out part of the context makes it seem like Corbyn sympathized with Bin Laden, rather than with the rule of law.
What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?
I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.
Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.
What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?
I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.
Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.
My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!
It's a fair point. Atlee was never that good with the media, but he gave us the NHS.
With May, though, not only is she bad at the media side, we know from her time at the Home Office that's she's also bad at the day job side as well.
Do we? I mean, being a good politician, being what people want, and doing the things people want are all very separate things, I think. (in that last one, many separate things)
I think she has more substance/conviction to her than Cameron; I never got the opinion with Cameron he was there for anything more than the prestige ( a bit like Blair). I think May has her own vision for Britain at least. You might not agree with it or like it, but that doesn't mean she's bad at the job, just that you don't like what she stands for.
I get the impression that Corbyn absolutely lives for this stuff. Out campaigning, talking, meeting people. The Labour party have stopped bickering and let him off the leash because they have no choice, and no time to get anything else done. And doesn't he look relaxed now that he's not fighting against his own party squabbling?
May blatantly hates it. The question is - if she brings back a reduced majority, or even a not-substantially-increased-majority, will the ever present backstabbers in the Tory party go for her? I mean, if she loses that's a given. But we could well, in 2 weeks, be looking at another Tory leadership campaign. And hence nobody negotiating Brexit. Again! Hooray!
Graphite wrote: I get the impression that Corbyn absolutely lives for this stuff. Out campaigning, talking, meeting people. The Labour party have stopped bickering and let him off the leash because they have no choice, and no time to get anything else done. And doesn't he look relaxed now that he's not fighting against his own party squabbling?
Not really. Paxman and Neil made him squirm. He's great at preaching to the converted and loves to go off on a John Lennon 'Imagine' style idealistic sermon. When he's waving his hand around an audience hall, he exudes a relaxed atmosphere reasonably well. But when someone with some figures at their fingertips applies some pressure with a few pointed questions, he does this disgruntled frown, starts flailing, stumbling, and trying to address the audience instead.
The conclusion I've come to is that he's reasonably good at the vague general interpersonal aspect, but can't deal with a one on one grilling when someone puts his toes in the fire. You saw it the other night; he'd clearly prepped extensively for defending himself about the IRA and Paxman went , 'So.....you and the Falklands!' and he panicked.
May's the opposite side. Her posture sucks, she's never going to be likable, and she barely tries. But she does her homework at least, she tends to have figures at her fingertips, and she doesn't seem to crack under pressure in the way he does.
If you could combine them both, Power Rangers style, you'd probably have quite a good politician!
Future War Cultist wrote: Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.
There is if you take the quote in context. He said it was a tragedy that Bin Laden wasn't arrested and put on trial (which he thinks should have been easily achievable), not that Bin Ladens death itself was a tragedy. I can't say I disagree with him.
Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.
And one of the main jobs of a politician is to get elected, no matter how well you perform once you've actually got the job. And May seems to be BAD at that. It'd be interesting to see how many people in her constituency voted for her in the past, and how many would have voted for anyone with a blue ribbon.
What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?
I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.
Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.
My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!
Argos buddies! I got my tv unit from Argos.
And this is an interesting theory. I don't think May is a good operator but this point about charismatic but for slimy operators like Blair and Cameron is true.
I hope this makes sense. I'm on my phone and it's hard to type.
Graphite wrote: Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.
And one of the main jobs of a politician is to get elected, no matter how well you perform once you've actually got the job. And May seems to be BAD at that. It'd be interesting to see how many people in her constituency voted for her in the past, and how many would have voted for anyone with a blue ribbon.
May got 66% of all the votes cast in her constituency in 2015. She got more than five times as many votes as the second placed candidate (Labour.)
Some of that is due to it being a Tory-leaning area, but not all. May has been MP for Maidenhead since 1997. The Party like her being in that seat or they would select someone else to stand for it.
Graphite wrote: Oh, granted, they're both inept in their own special and unique ways which are glaringly obvious now, plus a whole raft of extra incompetencies which will only become evident in the future, but it really does seem that in an election campaign, which is what's currently ongoing, Corbyn does rather well. Which rather torpedoes the whole "Jezza's unelectable" narrative.
.
Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.
I think all this talk about 'points narrowing' in the polls is frankly just a case of the 24 hour news network desperate to spice it up a bit. Making it sound like there's an actual contest is far more interesting than just repeating 'Yeah, she's probably going to win another thirty seats' ad infinitum. I'm open to being surprised on that score, but I don't think the 'Promise all things to all people' manifesto has actually made much of an impact, and Corbyn himself is too poor a politician to carry a campaign through to a remotely successful conclusion. The Tories thought they had it in the bag at first, and put in absolutely no effort, but we've seen over the last few weeks that they've begun to take it seriously and gain steam. Certainly, they've adapted their approach as they've gone as a response to the blunders made, whereas Jezze and co. seem incapable of learning and keep making the same gaffes they've been doing since the start.
tl;dr I reckon those who would have voted Corbyn still will do, but nobody else will. We shall see though!
Or people who see a man who seems to (a) care, (b) engage in people, (c) knows what he's talking about and (d) lands on the right side of history, up against a woman who is none of the above.
Your options are pretty awful whatever way you look at it, so I can't blame anyone for taking what they feel is the least gakky option.
I suspect we're going to have record low turnout on this one, or record high spoiled ballots.
Herzlos wrote: Or people who see a man who seems to (a) care, (b) engage in people, (c) knows what he's talking about and (d) lands on the right side of history, up against a woman who is none of the above.
.
I think anyone who looks at Corbyn and starts thinking 'That is a man who is on the right side of history!' falls into category (a) of my previous definition. In my opinion, anyway.
Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I've can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.
Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....
It was obvious by the time of Mays interview which side of the bed Paxman preferred. Despite not really feeling confident about either side, Corbyn easily out did May in the discussions. Paxman basically jumped on Corbyn every few seconds and never really let him get on with putting out his message. I think if I was in the audience I would have told Paxman to shut the hell up as he's not running to be PM. However when he came to May he just sat there especially at the end and just let her spout out 5 minutes of a party political broadcast and to force down the we'll take no deal if there isn't a good deal (whereas a good interviewer might have asked just what a good deal is?) and almost certainly wouldn't have let Corbyn do the same thing. Yet despite this the general consensus is that Corbyn came out relatively unscathed because Paxman just asked the same questions over and over which had been prepared for and May looked completely out of her depth despite the more easier ride by Paxman. Her responses to the NHS, Education and Social Care were well damning really if you care about social inequality in the country. Still strong and stable, get rid of those dirty immigrants and best possible deal got the seals clapping in the audience.
I said it before Andrew Neil would have been much better than Shouty McShout Paxman.
And the press appears to be getting even more biased. When even David Dimbleby is noting the very skewed views of the press you've got to wonder just how bad things are...(and really how influenced the populace can be by the media).
Future War Cultist wrote: A decent left wing leader would be nice, but I can't call an IRA supporting scumbag like Corbyn 'nice'. Especially because the beardy prick seems to jump into bed with every anti-western anti-British faction there is regardless of how loathsome they are. Remember, he called Bin Ladens death a tragedy. There's no coming back from that.
He called Bin Ladens killing rather than being captured and tried in the US a tragedy. The way you've left out part of the context makes it seem like Corbyn sympathized with Bin Laden, rather than with the rule of law.
Agreed (and obviously something people choose to ignore), however it's obviously OK for western powers to assassinate anyone they please and you wonder why some people get annoyed and do stupid things.
It is also questionable that supported the IRA but more tried to get a form of dialogue going. From that perspective he was just an early adopter that discussions can bring more permanent change. Both the Tories and New Labour 'sympathised' with the IRA later as they came to reason that causing bloody Sunday massacres was probably not the way to true peace and that it required to actual discuss the issues with the terrorists to stop the endless chain of violence and death.
What if May just interviews badly because she is just bad at it?
I mean Blair was an excellent interviewee who could sell snow to Inuits. But he was a massive slimeball.
Over the past few decades, we have shifted towards people who interview well because we then assume that they are good people. But that is very rarely the case.
My desk is from Argos. But it's nice and pine!
Argos buddies! I got my tv unit from Argos.
And this is an interesting theory. I don't think May is a good operator but this point about charismatic but for slimy operators like Blair and Cameron is true.
I hope this makes sense. I'm on my phone and it's hard to type.
True she ain't so shiny she can slide across a floor and not move her feet, convince a Saudi to buy sand and sell bridges to people in a desert.
But she is not that kind of person, she ain't entirely smooth and does have weakness in interviews.
Maybe at least that might be a good thing vs the likes of Blair who sold us so much gak and lies it was insane.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:Chill? You're telling me to chill? I'm not the person in this thread ranting that anyone who dares to vote for a party that I dislike are murderers.
I'm calling for all sides to chill. My apologies if that was unclear. I have friends and family over there and some of the rhetoric I'm seeing is getting out of hand.
Graphite wrote:
...... for Gork's sake.
Gork? GORK?!
MORK IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!!! TO ARMS! WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH!
Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.
Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....
Nope. Note this part:
Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
I'm referring purely to the people I've met, spoken to, and know on the subject, and passing an opinion as to why they are voting for Corbyn. Totally legitimate. I'm not declaring it as fact, or even applying it to everyone out there. Any dedicated Corbynista believer is free to try and convince me at any time that they don't fit into those three categories.
Not to mention the fact that being a hardcore leftist or having a real hatred for the Tories is hardly an insult, they're entirely valid positions to hold. Even being ignorant on a subject isn't really an insult. If you asked me how to lay out some internal plumbing, I'd probably be equally clueless and vulnerable to clever spin on how it should be best undertaken. That link earlier on Labour's economic record is a perfect example of an article which 98% of the population probably doesn't have the tools or knowledge to pick apart. It's no more of an insult to note that fact, than it is to note my knowledge deficiency on plumbing.
True she ain't so shiny she can slide across a floor and not move her feet, convince a Saudi to buy sand and sell bridges to people in a desert.
But she is not that kind of person, she ain't entirely smooth and does have weakness in interviews.
Maybe at least that might be a good thing vs the likes of Blair who sold us so much gak and lies it was insane.
Wait a minute are we saying that the Tories have spent the last 7 years lying to the populace which is fine and yet the if Labour do it then that's a different issue? That sounds like double standards to me?
And on an aside given that we are about to go into the most complex negotiations in our history it might be good to have someone that can be smooth and charm a decent agreement rather than a "bull at a gate" approach that is likely only going to leave the EU laughing at the UK's foolishness?
If May can't comfortably negotiate with the public and gets flummoxed by the simplest of questions and responds with the same old tired mantra of "best deal possible for the Tory party" (or worse has a senile grandmother's strop) then what hope do we really have of getting any sort of agreement with the EU. We might as well go in and say "WTO folks is that OK?" and be done with it and let the economy and your children's future collapse compared to what it could have been (and even with a deal its going to be far worse). But hey that's OK because at least we'll be able to keep out the dirty immigrants stealing our jobs and keeping wages down (which has no evidence base) right?
May pretty much admitted last night the police, NHS etc are all going to get cut and she doesn't really care about the damage it will cause (especially to the poorest). But if you are in the top 2% of earners don't worry about it you'll be fine. But suggest, shock horror that we might need to pay a bit more tax to keep these fine institutions working for everyone then there is uproar. Personally I think May's view on being English appears to be based around the mantra of "Me, myself and I".
When in two years time people are complaining about public services and economy are going to the dogs because we didn't want foreign doctors, nurses, catering staff, vegetable and fruit pickers etc I'll be quite happy to tell those that voted Tory "Told you so"!
Does he though? I've seen plenty of soundbytes of preaching to his flock, but I haven't seen him having much luck convincing those on the fence. As Paxman said, 'Why are none of the things you support on your manifesto?' Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible or not well versed enough in basic history, economics, and politics to be able to discern the spin from the facts but are left-leaning enough to dislike the Tories,
b) actual hardcore leftists, and
c people desperate to get rid of the Tories at -any- cost.
Good to know a mod has just insulted quite a few people there from the implication....
Nope. Note this part:
Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
I'm referring purely to the people I've met, spoken to, and know on the subject, and passing an opinion as to why they are voting for Corbyn. Totally legitimate. I'm not declaring it as fact, or even applying it to everyone out there. Any dedicated Corbynista believer is free to try and convince me at any time that they don't fit into those three categories.
No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people" and you did a nice Tory trick of ignoring the fact you called people "gullible". And even if you can persuade me that weren't implying this then you still insulted the people that you called gullible because rather than try and argue why they were wrong you just insulted them. Sorry you are a mod and you should be better than this.
Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.
To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Even Radio 4 has been talking about the easy ride the Tories have had at the hands of the media so far. This is due to their very low degree of engagement in the process.
To go back to the issue of wealth, it is unrealistic to call a salary of £30,000 "wealth". Many people living in southern Britain would be struggling to get by on such a salary, whatever its relation to average pay, etc.
It depends on what you mean by wealth. As stated previously at £30k you still get a choice in what you do. I can easily find studio flats for £450pcm in the south east which a 30K salary easily covers. Go to £700pcm and you can get a terraced house. The wealth is because you have a choice. You can even decided to commute because you have about £2k pcm to play with. OK so you are not going to be living the high life but you still have plenty of choices relatively. Now consider that 70% of the population are earning less than this and 1% less than about 11k. Relatively for these people £30k is wealth they could only imagine. £450pcm is half their salary in any month before bills, they have no choices everything goes on essentials only. There's no money for fun, for educating yourself further to improve yourself and so on. I'm not saying 30k makes life easy but by the vast majority of the rest of the population you are wealthy.
No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people"
Yes. The only people in my limited empirical experience and opinion. Pulling a few words out of a sentence/context and claiming an insult doesn't make it one.
And even if you can persuade me that weren't implying this then you still insulted the people that you called gullible because rather than try and argue why they were wrong you just insulted them.
Some people are gullible. If you're complaining that I mentioned the fact that there are gullible people out there and they have votes/opinions, I'm not entirely certain what to tell you. Are you claiming gullible people do not exist? Or if they do, that they don't ever support people in Labour? I'm sure there's plenty of gullible people voting Tory and several other factions as well. Gullibility is not the exclusive preserve of any one one political faction, any more than ignorance is. Mentioning that people possess a trait and also vote is not, I think, particularly damning.
Sorry you are a mod and you should be better than this.
Than having an opinion on the motivations for people to support a politician? Dear Lord.
You may also wish to note that I initially used the word 'support', or in other words, actively campaign for/believe in Corbyn as opposed to 'vote for'. There are plenty of people who vote for Labour who don't fit into those categories, but they don't tend to be 'believers', so to speak. I'm talking about the people for whom Corbyn can do no wrong, those who see him on the telly and believe he's the salvation of the country, the ones who pen the innumerable articles about the evil media and the saintliness of the man.
No you did because you said from your experience and to quote "the only people"
Yes. The only people in my limited empirical experience and opinion. Pulling a few words out of a sentence/context and claiming an insult doesn't make it one.
No need to take anything out of context, your exact wording was
Personally, as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience and opinion) the only people who actually -support- him are:-
a) those gullible...
So lets break the sentence shall we. First we have
"Personally..." Fine it's you opinion
"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)
"the only people who actually -support- him are:" Fairly self explanatory but that your hypothesis (in reference empirical experience) is that the people that support him are
"a) those gullible..." (again self explanatory but insulting)
Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.
If you had stated "I've met a few supporters of Corbyn and some of the appeared to be a bit naïve and gullible in accepting what he was saying" then that would have been fine because it refers to actual experience. Instead you invoked a hypothesis by making an empirical assessment of Corbyn supporter (and I'd like you to provide your data set with errors and what made them 'gullible' to make such a sweeping hypothesis)
Than having an opinion on the motivations for people to support a politician? Dear Lord.
No that a mod should go around insulting a group of people you don't know because of very shaky personal experience.
I appreciate you are desperately trying to do a U-turn on the May scale but can't you just accept that you potentially insulted Corbyn supporters because of your personal opinions and anecdotal discussions?
Whirlwind wrote: [
"...as far as I can tell (in my limited empirical experience)..." You've done an analysis of the your own data you have collected and therefore invoking a hypothesis (hence the wording empirical)
Empirical means it's information that's been gathered through sensory data input, actually. Aka, my own experiences. It's distinct from 'rationalist' data, which is worked out in an abstract intellectual fashion (which is what you appear to be searching for). Derives from the word 'empiricism'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism Basic academic philosophical usage in line with the etymological origins of the word and epistemology. You may have some alternative definition of the word, but that's mine. That help?
In other words, I'm not claiming to have done any form of extended analysis, I'm talking about what I have personally experienced. The 'hypothesis' so to speak, is derived from my collective assessment from those I have encountered who are dedicated Corbynistas, as opposed to just a casual Labour voter or person with other political inclinations/beliefs.
"a) those gullible..." (again self explanatory but insulting)
Hence to put it all together from the evidence gathering you have concluded that a significant proportion of those people that actually support Corbyn are actually gullible for doing so (or are gullible in the information they accept). That's an implication and insulting.
You missed the following word 'or'. You know, the one that implies an alternative. You also missed out on the fact that I offered two other options. I wasn't declaring that Corbyn supporters were all three in my experience, but one of three. Although in retrospect, I should have probably separated a) into two categories, and considering it, I suppose a Corbyn supporter could fall into multiple categories presented therein.
If you had stated "I've met a few supporters of Corbyn and some of the appeared to be a bit naïve and gullible in accepting what he was saying" then that would have been fine because it refers to actual experience. Instead you invoked a hypothesis by making an empirical assessment of Corbyn supporter (and I'd like you to provide your data set with errors and what made them 'gullible' to make such a sweeping hypothesis)
My dataset is made out of personal empirical experience. It's not exactly transferrable, leastways, not unless you've developed a memory transfer machine whilst I wasn't looking.
No that a mod should go around insulting a group of people you don't know because of very shaky personal experience.
People I don't know? Errr.....I hate to break it you, but considering I'm going off of personal empirical experience here, I do actually know a good number, if not most of them. That's......kind of the point. That's why I specified the word 'empirical' and because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I have the only truth of things, qualified it as my opinion.
I appreciate you are desperately trying to do a U-turn on the May scale but can't you just accept that you potentially insulted Corbyn supporters because of your personal opinions and anecdotal discussions?
I find it mildly interesting you've jumped so far on an insult that doesn't exist, but completely passed over Yodhrins's earlier comment.
I also find it entertaining the way you've linked items you perceive as negative to Tories twice in as many posts. You realise that would probably be just as insulting to a relevant group of people (ala Conservative voters) as the thing you're attempting (and failing) to accuse me of, right?
EDIT:- Upon reflection, this is going far off track, so I'm going to leave this particular line of back and forth there. Rest assured, no insult was intended to anyone specific, but I do reserve the right to have an opinion on the types of people currently waving metaphorical flags with Corbyn on the front.
). Either we'll get a reasonable deal that works (more or less) and keeps everything for everyone ticking along with only some minor damage on both sides, or it will be clear that we just managed to jump ship before the 
...
