There's been an almost continuous demand since the election that those of us considered to be the "liberal elite" must understand why Leave voters supported Brexit. Here's an example of how one leave voter has absolutely no idea why people voted for remain.
The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU
Actually Boris, EU regulations are there exactly for those reasons, that's the whole point of them.
He's making the sovereignty argument as if we haven't heard it before, and discussed it many many times. If this is how he thinks he can unite the country, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
Much as I loathe the idea of Rees-Mogg, the non-thinking man's thinking man, I would sooner see him as PM than Johnson. The man is a weasel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03h3qqt
go the 1 minute mark.
Digby Jones in Jan 2016 :
"Not one job will be lost" "German cars"
"We're that important"
really aging well huh ?
presumably there'll be a rush to hold him to account yeah ?
Obviously the reason it hasnt turned out as he wanted is because of remainers, not enough vision and talking Britain down etc etc.
If only RM, Boris and Gove were running the show, it'd all be awesome.
Actually, I genuinely believe that the best thing for this country was to hand Brexit to the Leavers. 2 reasons, first, they have no one to blame if things go wonky, it's all on them, second, their supporters might finally recognise what an absolute shower of lady clams their leaders actually are.
We'd be back in the EU within months.
Here's something else that Brexit means. If we were staying in the EU, we would have had no way to ensure that the BVI and all the other tax hideaways could continue to operate as they do. That in turn might have meant, eventually, that Lord Rothermere (and no doubt, many of his friends) would have had to pay some tax. It's lucky he had the Daily Mail to help avoid this cruel possibility.
I think we can all agree that anything is worth avoiding such a distasteful outcome.
Tate & Lyle are strongly pro-Brexit due to some kind of financial advantage they will receive by getting out. I'm not clear on the details.
I have suspected for some time that a lot of people got keen when they realised the EU was starting to close in on off-shore tax havens, many of which are enabled by the UK.
r_squared wrote: The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU
Actually Boris, EU regulations are there exactly for those reasons, that's the whole point of them.
He's making the sovereignty argument as if we haven't heard it before, and discussed it many many times. If this is how he thinks he can unite the country, he's a bigger fool than I thought.
Much as I loathe the idea of Rees-Mogg, the non-thinking man's thinking man, I would sooner see him as PM than Johnson. The man is a weasel.
They are both as dangerous as each other. One I get the impression wants the best but is deluded that going back to the 1800s class system is the way forward. The other doesn't give a damn about anything (either party of country) and would happily throw a old granny in front of a bus if he thought it would gain him and only him and advantage. At least May isn't that bad, she solely cares about the party - so she at least cares about something
Actually, I genuinely believe that the best thing for this country was to hand Brexit to the Leavers. 2 reasons, first, they have no one to blame if things go wonky, it's all on them, second, their supporters might finally recognise what an absolute shower of lady clams their leaders actually are.
We'd be back in the EU within months.
I'm not so sure, whilst they have papers like the Daily Fail/ Sunday distress permanently persuading the less well educated then they will keep on the same mantra of:-
It's Remainer's fault they aren't working hard enough
It's the lefties fault that don't want to see all their rights stripped
It's the EU's fault because they looked after their interests
It's the young people's fault, they just don't want to work as hard as the baby boomers did...
And lets not forget the classic (which May uses week in week out), it's Labour's fault despite them having 8 years to solve the problems of their own creation.
As long as the media will happily tout those lines then there will always be an element that believe it. I just hope that the younger generation allow us to grow out of such nonsense and see the Tories for what they really are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Tate & Lyle are strongly pro-Brexit due to some kind of financial advantage they will receive by getting out. I'm not clear on the details.
I have suspected for some time that a lot of people got keen when they realised the EU was starting to close in on off-shore tax havens, many of which are enabled by the UK.
They are also wanting free trade for sugar cane from countries paying peanuts with no social/environmental/political considerations. No coincidence I think that a former employee is directing a method of leaving that will benefit them.
A few months ago I thought Rees-Mogg was a hard-right sad sack who at least had the courage of his convictions and the integrity to carry them, and I could credit his honesty even while disagreeing strongly with his viewpoint.
I have since found out that he was carrying the flag for the tobacco, mining and oil industries in parliament while failing to declare his strong financial interest.
This gak bag hypocrite is second most likely to be our next prime minister after Bozo the clown.
The Met outsources digital forensics provision to a defence technology company, called Mass, which subcontracts casework to other private companies, some of which are unaccredited. City of London Police uses six external providers, three of which are not accredited.
Advertisement
Experts at five different companies told the Guardian they had serious concerns about the quality of digital evidence being admitted in courts.
One analyst, who specialised in defence work, said the prosecution sometimes “cherry-picked” text messages and images and did “as little work as possible up-front in the hope that [the defendant] pleads guilty”. Another analyst, from a different company, stated: “In many cases the prosecution evidence isn’t true.”
The head of a company that carries out prosecution work across the country, said laboratories were widely disregarding a requirement to disclose to courts if they were not accredited. “I would challenge you to find any report that does that,” he said. He added that, in his view, “99% of people who are charged are guilty as hell”.
This ‘digital evidence’ is getting to be a bit of a problem, what with these rape trials collapsing after the prosecution eventually admit there’s loads of text messages they didn’t think were worth mentioning before, while they conveniently support the defendant’s account.
You’d hope the good old days where the police only put forwards the evidence they needed to bang you up, because they were sure you were guilty, are long gone. They aren’t.
Kilkrazy wrote: Bozza has just finished his much-trailed "Road to Brexit" speech. Any reactions?
I've read a bunch of anti-Bozo stuff, from the usual suspects, and I'm waiting for the Pro-Bo side to make their presence felt.
Reactions?
Even as a Brexit supporter, I thought that speech was weapons grade bollocks.
The usual Bojo claptrap of talking a lot without actually saying anything.
Juncker's reaction to it was equally as risible.
I'm sorry to say, that Western Politicians, of all shades of the political spectrum, just ain't up to the job.
Just stating something doesn't mean it is correct. This isn't adding anything to the conversation. Juncker was answering a specific query from the press, it wasn't part of a speech prepared. All he effectively said that Boris's claim that the EU is trying to take over is weapons grade rubbish and that Boris is effectively lying to the populace again. He specifically said that they were not trying to create a United States of the EU and highlighted that the EU was made up of 27 separate nations.
Boris on the other hand is trying to win favour back from half the populace who see him as a lying donkey-cave (which he is) because he wants more control (which has fallen very flat). If he thinks, that half (if not more) of the population think that after he has given them an almighty wedgy that they will fall in behind his wet dream vision of low social & environmental controls he is sorely mistaken. He's very goof at preparing speeches but as soon as he goes off track he starts talking gibberish for example this:-
Where he thinks organic carrots as part of the solution to issues with Wrexit is both sensible and likely to achieve anything at all. It is also worrying that the trend seems to be for our politicians to think we should become some sort of agricultural nation which is not really going to pay the bills.
On the other hand I wouldn't mind a free trade on Turnips. We've got a lot of huge Turnips in Government and I'd be quite happy to trade them away for free.
Because that is dictatorship aspirations. The point of a democracy is that the populace is allowed to change it's mind. Regularly if we want. Once people in control forget that they no longer support democracy (and surprise surprise are only interested in their own dictatorial control.
Still he might resign if we force the government into another vote, that would mean we'd stay in the EU!
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.
This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.
We don't trust them, they don't trust us.
Anyway, it's rare that I agree with Peter Hitchens, but I read one of his old articles and IMO, he made one of the best points made to date about Brexit:
we should not have abandoned our constitution. There should have been no referendum.
EU membership should have been decided in a General Election with the question front and centre. The 52% could then have voted in a party that would have done the paperwork in The Commons and got us out of the EU with a bill passed by The Commons.
Foolishly, Cameron and Parliament fethed up by voting to hold a referendum, then dragging it out for months afterwards with the Supreme Court case.
But like I say, MPs do not reflect the people. If 52% of voters support Brexit, then 52% of MPs should back it. Because of this disconnect I mentioned earlier, the referendum was the only way for voters to decide.
We messed up our own constitution and MPs share a lot of the blame for this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Would we be better off with a Putin, a Duterte or an al-Assad in charge, do you think?
Of course not. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't settle for second best. Long ago, we had capable and compotent politicians with a strong sense of duty to the nation.
Sadly, they've been replaced by lobby fodder, time servers, spivs, buffoons and drunkards. The stories I could tell you about Scottish Labour MPs too drunk to vote.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @
But like I say, MPs do not reflect the people. If 52% of voters support Brexit, then 52% of MPs should back it. Because of this disconnect I mentioned earlier, the referendum was the only way for voters to decide.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a referendum is a straight numbers vote right? So is this one of the more obvious examples of someone railing against a system that they don't understand?
Or are your referendums done in the same way as you elect MPs over there
Then comes question should MP's be obliged to willingly hurt country or follow voters will? Voters generally don't vote for what's actually good for them. Just look how areas that are going to be hurt MOST by brexit voted for it.
Are MP's supposed to do what's right for country and best for people or not? Especially on edge cases(brexit vote was hardly clear win for leavers either)
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.
This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.
We don't trust them, they don't trust us.
The alternative interpretation is that the MPs are aware of how ridiculously difficult trying to leave would be and how it can pretty much only result in great harm to much of the country and voted accordingly.
Same for immigration. Should MPs still introduce the limits many people are asking for if they know such limits will harm the country and, as a result, its people?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership
You could argue that voting for Brexit doesn't necessarily conflict with being happy with EU membership. The protest votes, the misunderrstanding, the lies about Brexit meaning EEA or staying in the single market. With a margin that thin it wouldn't take many to skew it.
Plus MP's have a duty to consider all of their constituents, not just the 1/3rd that voted to Brexit. That lots of MP's are against Brexit is undeniable, but it's also fairly obvious. The fallout of Brexit could be huge and could really negatively affect a lot of constituents, even those that wanted to leave.
Apparently there's a close correlation between Brexit votes and wanting a return of the death penalty. So by your logic, we should have 52ish % of MP's pushing to bring back the death penalty too? I mean, you think they should mirror the 'will of the people'.
Mob rule has never ended well though,a person is smart enough, but people get dumber the bigger the crowd is.
The same population who voted 52/48 for leaving the EU, voted for the parliament containing 70% pro-EUMPs to represent them and carry out the process of leaving the EU.
UKIP, the most anti-EU party, was the party that lost the largest number of votes at the election, their share collapsing from 13% to 3%.
On the other hand if you had taken the votes for brexit for each constituency, in the manner we do for parliament, you’d overwhelmingly have brexit seats in government. Remain votes were concentrated in places like London. This is why a lot of MPs find themselves in the awkward position of going against the majority of their constituents by opposing brexit.
I don’t think that saying the public voted for 70% pro-EU Parliament is that much of a big deal. Odds are that all serious candidates for many constituencies were pro-EU, so people didn’t have that much choice, and they weren’t voting on a single issue anyway - you vote on a best fit approach to represent you. Maybe you the candidate that best fits the majority of your beliefs is pro-EU, and that’s the only point on which you majorly differ. That you don’t vote UKIP because of that doesn’t mean you’ve changed your mind on brexit, it just means you don’t think brexit is the only factor that decides who you vote for MP.
Many Labour supporting areas, a pro-EU party, voted brexit. Which seems to prove that the public is happy to support Labour members on all but this issue. That they didn’t vote UKIP doesn’t mean there’s an aversion to Brexit, it just means they don’t like UKIP and don’t think Brexit is important enough to trump the entire manifesto of other parties. Lastly, ‘brexit means brexit’ so the electorate doesn’t need UKIP if parliament are going to follow through on the referendum result, which they said over and over that they would, so why would anyone vote UKIP now?
All that are good points, though at the same time it is supposition and (intelligent) guesswork as to what they actually mean.
Anyway, the constitution doesn't provide for binding referendums, nor does it provide for taking a vote at one time and refusing to take another vote at another time because people's opinions might have changed.
The UK is supposed to be governed by a representative parliament elected by FPTP. If we want to change that, we need a constitutional convention, which would be rather a lot to handle at the present time.
As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.
As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.
So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership
You could argue that voting for Brexit doesn't necessarily conflict with being happy with EU membership. The protest votes, the misunderrstanding, the lies about Brexit meaning EEA or staying in the single market. With a margin that thin it wouldn't take many to skew it.
Plus MP's have a duty to consider all of their constituents, not just the 1/3rd that voted to Brexit. That lots of MP's are against Brexit is undeniable, but it's also fairly obvious. The fallout of Brexit could be huge and could really negatively affect a lot of constituents, even those that wanted to leave.
Apparently there's a close correlation between Brexit votes and wanting a return of the death penalty. So by your logic, we should have 52ish % of MP's pushing to bring back the death penalty too? I mean, you think they should mirror the 'will of the people'.
Mob rule has never ended well though,a person is smart enough, but people get dumber the bigger the crowd is.
And a lot of Remain MPs supported the Iraq invasion (500,000 dead) and harsh benefit cuts that have hurt the poor people of our society. Suicides up
If you're going to go down the death penalty comparison then I can flag all sorts of dodgy acts Remain MPs have supported...
Supporting the EU doesn't give a moral 'superiority.'
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.
This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.
We don't trust them, they don't trust us.
The alternative interpretation is that the MPs are aware of how ridiculously difficult trying to leave would be and how it can pretty much only result in great harm to much of the country and voted accordingly.
Same for immigration. Should MPs still introduce the limits many people are asking for if they know such limits will harm the country and, as a result, its people?
Back in the 1970s, the number of MPs supporting EEC membership reflected the support in the nation for EEC membership.
Back in the 1950s the British people backed the government's stance on Suez.
Back in the 1940s, the landslide for Labour reflected the huge support for the welfare state in the UK.
Back in the 1930s, the nation backed Baldwin and Chamberlin's appeasement approach. Had Chamberlain called an election after Munich, it would have been a landslide victory for him.
There's a pattern here
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Then comes question should MP's be obliged to willingly hurt country or follow voters will? Voters generally don't vote for what's actually good for them. Just look how areas that are going to be hurt MOST by brexit voted for it.
Are MP's supposed to do what's right for country and best for people or not? Especially on edge cases(brexit vote was hardly clear win for leavers either)
The majority of British people are against fox hunting, but Conservative MPs have been pushing for the ban to be lifted. David Cameron would have had a vote, but the SNP threatened to tip the balance and Cameron backed down.
The majority of British people are against more foreign interventions. Libya was another fiasco and Cameron tried to drag us into Syria.
Again, I say the disconnect between people and MPs on a lot of issues is a mile wide.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.
As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.
So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!
Would they have had the same opinion if they hadn't been given fabricated intelligence reports?
MP's making a bad decision then doesn't mean all MP's make bad decisions. I agree they rarely have the nations interests at heart though, but neither are they actually stupid.
Brexit will be a disaster for most of the Tory party, which is why May is so torn.
As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.
So it turns out that, unlike US intelligence told, there were no WMDs in Iraq.
How many of those pro-invasion MPs would have backed intervention if they had known their information is pure horsegak?
So, in light of the recent developments, which side in the Brexit divide is the one making made-up claims about mythical WMDs?
The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As always, thanks for the replies, but can I remind my fellow dakka members that not so long ago, the vast majority of MPs backed invading Iraq, and millions of British citizens were against it.
As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.
So the idea that our MPs know best, and have the nation's best interests at heart, is concentrated horsegak!
Would they have had the same opinion if they hadn't been given fabricated intelligence reports?
MP's making a bad decision then doesn't mean all MP's make bad decisions. I agree they rarely have the nations interests at heart though, but neither are they actually stupid.
Brexit will be a disaster for most of the Tory party, which is why May is so torn.
Despite the Iraq debacle, some of our MPs (Michael Gove famously backing Cameron on Syria) were itching to bomb Libya and Syria, so I don't think the faulty intelligience reports would have made a blind bit of difference.
Having watched numerous Syrian debates and Russian debates in The Commons, most of our MPs struggle to grasp basic geo-political realities.
For example, Russia has supported Syria for a long time and obviously, Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of interest.
Let's set aside what side of the fence you're on when it comes to these two issues: When Ukraine went for a pro-EU government, and Syria needed help, of course Russia was always going to get involved and back its ally and react to something happening on its doorstep.
So for some of our MPs to express surprise at this...
Words failed me at the time...
But if you're in a seat that is solid blue or solid red, and has been for decades, you don't need to be good. You just need cunning to get selected or the right connections to get parachuted in. That's one reason why I maintain that a lot of our MPs are just lobby fodder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.
Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...
As we know, the invasion and occupation turned out to be a fething disaster. Anybody with two brain cells knew that Saddam would struggle to get a pizza delivered to his front door in 45 minutes , never mind launch WMDs at the UK in 45 minutes.
So it turns out that, unlike US intelligence told, there were no WMDs in Iraq.
How many of those pro-invasion MPs would have backed intervention if they had known their information is pure horsegak?
So, in light of the recent developments, which side in the Brexit divide is the one making made-up claims about mythical WMDs?
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...
...
An election that was called on the basis of returning the Conservatives with a strong and stable majority to ensure a strong bargaining position for Brexit, and resulted in a hung parliament.
Quite the ringing endorsement for "Brexit means Brexit!"
Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...
You mean both parties in what is essentially a 2-party state had Brexit manifestoes, and the result was a hung parliament.
You're lying if you claim to believe that Labour/Conservative got their votes due to Brexit. Lots of people voted Tory to stop Labour giving their money to the poor, and lots of people voted Labour to stop the Tories giving their money to the rich.
The only "Brexit" party was UKIP, which imploded (losing 10ppt and all of it's seats).
Lib Dem's lost out as well, but they'd lost all credibility after the Tory debacle.
So all we can actually take from that is that there was less support for Brexit between the referendum and the election.
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
On a daily basis, people like yourself, reds8n, Kilkrazy, whirlwind, Herzlos et al are posting bar graphs, pie charts, articles, memoirs, biographies, phd papers, whatever, on the problems of Brexit.
The newspapers are full of stories about EU reports, government reports, business experts, economy experts etc etc warning on the dangers of Brexit.
Japan has issued a warning, GDP is going to shrink 900% or something, and Britain will suffer.
That is the daily narrative on dakka and in the media. Let's assume for argument's sake that it's true.
Clearly, the UK is in grave danger, the British people are in danger of suffering, and yet, here I am saying that Remain MPs should put the nation first ahead of party, if they claim to care about the nation as they constantly claim they do.
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
Back in the 1970s, the number of MPs supporting EEC membership reflected the support in the nation for EEC membership.
Back in the 1950s the British people backed the government's stance on Suez.
Back in the 1940s, the landslide for Labour reflected the huge support for the welfare state in the UK.
Back in the 1930s, the nation backed Baldwin and Chamberlin's appeasement approach. Had Chamberlain called an election after Munich, it would have been a landslide victory for him.
There's a pattern here
There really isn't. Unless you consider the populace supporting 2 good things (EEC and Welfare State) and 2 bad things (Appeasement, though it was an understandable stance, and Suez) some kind of correlation that you need parliament and the populace united to do stuff? Which doesn't really say anything?
And parties get landslide victories without having to offer up a grand vision, sometimes just because people think "it's the other teams turn now".
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
Because people don't vote on single issues, at least in large enough numbers in enough constituencies to make it worthwhile. There's no point shouting about a single issue from the sidelines as you have no power to do anything about it. Unless, of course, you're pulling support from the Tories but then they'll just take your ideological stance and absorb all your voters.
On a daily basis, people like yourself, reds8n, Kilkrazy, whirlwind, Herzlos et al are posting bar graphs, pie charts, articles, memoirs, biographies, phd papers, whatever, on the problems of Brexit.
The newspapers are full of stories about EU reports, government reports, business experts, economy experts etc etc warning on the dangers of Brexit.
Japan has issued a warning, GDP is going to shrink 900% or something, and Britain will suffer.
That is the daily narrative on dakka and in the media. Let's assume for argument's sake that it's true.
Clearly, the UK is in grave danger, the British people are in danger of suffering, and yet, here I am saying that Remain MPs should put the nation first ahead of party, if they claim to care about the nation as they constantly claim they do.
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
Putting nation ahead of party means they need to be in parliament to have any actual impact. It is no use saying "I put the nation ahead of my party" from outside the system whilst your party replacement just drives the country off the cliff.
And, again, people in Banbury may not understand what effect a 10% in GDP will have but they will understand the effect that a new road/bus stop/etc. will have.
I would argue that MPs on both sides have not covered themselves in glory.
As I've said before, if well known Remain MPs like Ann Soubry think that Brexit is so bad for the UK and that Britain needs to stay in the EU, then why do they keep backing the government on Brexit? Why not stand down or defect to another party?
Remain supporters on dakka don't need allies like that who put party before country.
Well of course equidistance in this issue was to be expected from you but it's pretty clear at this point which platform ran on a hot-air balloon and which one had at least some grounding. I will take ineptitude over wilful deception any time.
It is interesting that you think a pro-Remain Labour MP and a pro-Remain Tory MP should leave and form their own single-issue party. Are British politics really that dire or do you just want them to end up like UKIP and LibDems and weed the government of dissenters?
Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
Did leave MPs get their seat through UKIP? No, they did not.
The issue of representativity is always a red herring. Men, higher income, higher education, etc. are all overrepresented in parliament. Would you support that 2/3 of MPs did not have higher education? Or require a certain % of MPs to oppose gay marriage?
NI govt has hired a whopping 6 new border officers, bringing the whole force to an impressive 63 people. That's for 200+ crossing points along 300+ miles, several ports and 2 or 3 airports.
How many would be re-elected as an independent, if the Tories replaced them with someone else?
Given that a lot of voters will vote for the party irrespective of the MP or politics, I suspect leaving a major party to join a single issue fringe or run as an independent means losing the seat in a lot of cases.
That being the case, if you want to stop Brexit, are you better being an elected Tory MP, or an unelected independent?
That we aren't charging straight down the hard Brexit route is directly attributable to Tory MP's who are against it.
When you're talking about standing for election on a single issue, you're really just talking about a hugely unreliable version of having a referendum. Why not just ask the country about Brexit again, instead of moving politicians around?
In Wales some years ago Labour attempted to parachute a female MP into ‘the safest seat in Wales’ using all-women shortlists. Their reliance on the belief that the locals would unquestioningly vote Labour was misplaced as the previous established member stood as independent and won.
I've said before that obviously, 52% of voters voted for Brexit, but 70% of our MPs back EU membership.
This disconnect between voters and MPs is obviously not a good thing, and it's not just on the EU. Immigration is another issue where the voters and the politicians seem to be miles apart.
That depends on how you spin the numbers. Out of the total voting populace approx 36% voted to leave, 34% voted to Remain and 30% didn't turn up. If we assume the 30% that didn't turn up were just happy with the status quo then in actuality parliament does represent the population.
As for immigration people's perceptions are tainted by what they read/watch. If you only hear the bad news stories then you can become disconnected in reality. Largely in this case that immigrants are sponging off the system when in reality they are working damn hard for the country. Now that some people have acted out of 'fear of people not being from around here they then happily disconnect from reality when the issues encouraging such people to leave are thrown up. Or they start proposing slavery of the younger generation so they can happily retire (as per the earlier article).
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem is that while 18 months ago nearly 52% of the UK population were for leaving the EU, no-one knew what that meant, and no-one knows now, and we don't know how many people have changed their minds, or might change their minds once the shape of the final proposition is defined.
Cough...general election summer 2017...cough...main parties had Brexit manifestoes...cough...nation's views clear...cough...
That's not an even comparison. As you have noted I am clearly pro staying in the EU. However I voted Labour. I did that because it was the best chance of removing a Tory crony (very little chance though). I wouldn't have voted that way if it was PR but felt little choice was there because of the FPTP system. Surveys seem to suggest that this happened across the board. Those that voted remain headed towards Labour/LD and those that voted Wrexit headed for Tories (in general and in England). As such you can argue that 60% of the populace voted for at most a soft Wrexit yet because of the system we have its full stream ahead to trying to wreck the younger generations future to ensure people like Boris, Tories and their donors can get even richer whilst exploiting the poor.
Why on earth do the BBC keep giving this arsehole air time?
How is he even still relevant to anything at all, including Brexit? What is their fascination with this bug eyed, chinless, wide boy? Why am I still seeing Nigel fething Farage on the TV?!
Howard A Treesong wrote: In Wales some years ago Labour attempted to parachute a female MP into ‘the safest seat in Wales’ using all-women shortlists. Their reliance on the belief that the locals would unquestioningly vote Labour was misplaced as the previous established member stood as independent and won.
This is why I think it should be a legal requirement for any candidate MP to have been resident in the area for at least 5-years prior to standing for election. That would stop the whole parachuting in of party apparatchiks to super safe seats and improve representation in the House of Commons.
Kilkrazy wrote: Local people can stand for election if they want to ensure candidates are local.
Yes, but that falls into the same trap as DINLT's "remain MPs should leave their party", namely that a large majority of people in this country vote on the basis of what party logo is next to the box on the ballot paper, not the individual candidate. So a local independent candidate is barely going to get their deposit back and the main parties are more interested in finding safe seats for slick, upper-middle class grads from Oxford to start their political career than providing local representation.
A lot of people seem unconvinced by my argument about a disconnect between voters and MPs, which is fair enough. Nobody's perfect.
But there's another aspect to this gulf between voters and MPs and that's political parties themselves.
I make it my business to read widely and often on politics, be it left, centre, or right.
As much as I loathe the Conservative party, I always follow their allies in the media, to see what the 'enemy' is thinking.
For example if you go to Conservative Home, there's a recurrent theme there that's been going on for years: the grassroots members feel ignored by party top brass.
Candidates seem to be parachuted into safe seats, local organisations and branches are often ignored, and when it comes to policy making, Cameron made sure the grassroots were kept miles away from having any say on formulating policy or ideas.
To have a disconnect between MPs and average voters on the street is one thing, but if a party is ignoring its own base i.e people who actively pay money to associate and campaign for the Tory party,
then you have to wonder what the hell is the point of a political party.
People seem to have overlooked how hollowed out UK politics actualy is. Forget Brexit here for a minute, because our body politic, public participation, and civic society, are going to the dogs!
Why on earth do the BBC keep giving this arsehole air time?
How is he even still relevant to anything at all, including Brexit? What is their fascination with this bug eyed, chinless, wide boy? Why am I still seeing Nigel fething Farage on the TV?!
I barely watch TV thee days, apart from the rugby or the football world cup.
Turn off and start painting more miniatures, or reading books, or 100+ more useful things that need to be done. That's my advice.
95% of TV content these days is utter horsegak IMO.
‘Middle income’ might as well be low income when it comes to housing. No wonder home ownership is falling so much. Renting and buying homes is just out of reach for many, and £30k income isn’t to be sniffed at. Teaching will never pay enough for me to buy a home in London, so like many others I’ll have to leave when I want to settle down with someone. Similarly for all those in essential services like nursing. The public and authorities desperately want nurses and teachers in their areas, but nothing addresses that wages and housing costs are woefully mismatched.
‘Middle income’ might as well be low income when it comes to housing. No wonder home ownership is falling so much. Renting and buying homes is just out of reach for many, and £30k income isn’t to be sniffed at. Teaching will never pay enough for me to buy a home in London, so like many others I’ll have to leave when I want to settle down with someone. Similarly for all those in essential services like nursing. The public and authorities desperately want nurses and teachers in their areas, but nothing addresses that wages and housing costs are woefully mismatched.
It's not good. For many years I have complained about this to my wife. We have never been truly poor, but we have never been well off. We have always felt lost in the middle. We just get by most of the time (at least until recently, about 18 months ago, when things changed for us). We never had any support from anyone. All of the support is aimed at the poorest, which is fine, and as it should be. However it results in us seeing people around us being able to access social housing at affordable rents, or part buy part affordable rent, people around us getting support with nursery fees. Therefore resulting in those less well off than us able to access things we cannot afford. I do not blame them, it is a structural issue that is failing to be addresses. Whilst we worry about areas becoming unaffordable and not removing the low paid the middle are being forgotten. You just need to look at somewhere like London. The city has a combination of multimillionaires and social housing with nothing in the middle.
What makes it worse is that it is our middle class parents that are doing it. They are the ones who vote tory time and again. The ones who are NIMBYS. The ones who protect their pensions at the cost to us. Those who say things like (quoting my 59 year old mother in law just yesterday) "I'm not going to be able to retire until I am 68. It's not fair. They should make the young ones work longer"... A woman who has not worked half her live, now works part time for just over minimum wage, owns a small house and two cars (thanks to a divorce settlement) and had the audacity to complain that her state pension will not be enough for her to go on holiday as she has not had enough NI payment years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A lot of people seem unconvinced by my argument about a disconnect between voters and MPs, which is fair enough. Nobody's perfect.
But there's another aspect to this gulf between voters and MPs and that's political parties themselves.
I make it my business to read widely and often on politics, be it left, centre, or right.
As much as I loathe the Conservative party, I always follow their allies in the media, to see what the 'enemy' is thinking.
For example if you go to Conservative Home, there's a recurrent theme there that's been going on for years: the grassroots members feel ignored by party top brass.
Candidates seem to be parachuted into safe seats, local organisations and branches are often ignored, and when it comes to policy making, Cameron made sure the grassroots were kept miles away from having any say on formulating policy or ideas.
To have a disconnect between MPs and average voters on the street is one thing, but if a party is ignoring its own base i.e people who actively pay money to associate and campaign for the Tory party,
then you have to wonder what the hell is the point of a political party.
People seem to have overlooked how hollowed out UK politics actualy is. Forget Brexit here for a minute, because our body politic, public participation, and civic society, are going to the dogs!
If they feel their party isn't listening to them, then don't vote for that candidate. They could vote for Labour, Lib-Dem, whoever. Even if the Tory still wins, the party will take notice of a dramatic swing towards other parties and will have to ask the members about why it is happening.
Alternatively, they could group together and effect change by voting for a leader who more represents their views, even if they are constantly told not to by the party itself. It worked for Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn, twice.
I have no sympathy for them if they continue to reward the behaviour they are complaining about by paying their party membership and voting for the people the party drops in to represent them, despite being cut off from all actual decision making.
It's an open secret that the Conservative party top brass are embarrassed by their own members
They despise their members, but their unwavering loyalty brings in membership subs for the party's coffers, so they are 'tolerated.'
From my reading, following the disaster of 1997, steps were taken to keep the grassroots at arms length from the higher echelons - hence the election of a used car salesman by the name of David Cameron.
People have to remember that 95% of Conservative MPs, with the notable exception of rare individuals such as Rees-Mogg, aren't Conservative. They're Blairites to the core.
So you have a base that is staunchly Conservative, but MPs who loathe and despise them.
Now, personally, I couldn't give two hoots for the Tories, and I take great delight at their imminent destruction, but I make this point to show that voter apathy to political engaement is not only restricted to The Commons.
Even long established political parties are clueless to their own mission and purpose.
Further education fees have made a surprise appearance in the latest news cycle, possibly due to Labour having promised to can student loans, which put the Tories on the back foot.
It's a topic I"m very interested in, as the "average" salaried father of an 18-year-old daughter who is currently trying to sort out her offers for entry this autumn.
Frankly I think the whole thing is a pig's ear.
The crucial point is that May insists that education has to be fair to tax payers. feth tax payers, I say, I"m a tax payer, my daughter will be a tax payer, what you really mean is you don't want to tax the rich more.
Student loans should match interest rates. Doing otherwise is an admission it’s a profit making exercise, but we’ve been told for years it to fund the university courses.
Student loans are a mess, over the last 10+ years there have been so many different deals with the amounts borrowed, the interest, when you have to start paying it back and how much for how long. Some people have to pay when they earn £18K, others £25K, some get it written off in later life but others carry it forever. And it’s all people who benefited from free university who are screwing the younger generations. Just like with housing, jobs and pensions. Sigh.
I hadn't noticed, what with Komrade Corbyn apparently selling the UK to some Czech spy, who definitely isn't talking out of his hoop.
How these "diplomats" managed to take time out of their busy spying schedule to organise Live Aid behind Bob Geldofs back without him noticing is just incredible. These ex-soviet types are truly a talented bunch. Definitely not some doddery old loon, making gak up.
I mean, his claims that he received intelligence from Corbyn passed to him from the MoD via his contacts in the CND movement about Margaret Thatcher's eating and clothing schedules seem completely reasonable.
No sensible, balanced editor would ever dare publish outrageous slurs in an attempt to defame an MP based on the ravings of a single dubious source. I mean, you'd have to call into question their journalistic integrity.
If you could find any evidence that they possessed any.
I’d love to support abolishing fees entirely, but given the vast increase in numbers* from when university was free, I’m not sure it’s a viable proposition.
Having said that, we have known skills shortages in engineering, nursing, teaching, etc., so we should definitely be abolishing fees for those courses, to encourage take-up. There also ought to be fee-free scholarships or similar for a certain number of students for other courses (e.g. history, art), so that the most talented in their respective fields can get the education they deserve, regardless of their background.
But if you’re only an average student who wants to do a course that is not going to be of any real benefit to the country, then you have to make a contribution. Possibly not as much as currently and certainly with interest rates capped.
I also think that anyone who hasn’t been into higher education before should have the same access to fee-free / scholarships as above; this would help people develop or re-train later in their careers and should also reduce the pressure to go to university even if your a clueless teenager who’ll pick a random course because you have to take the opportunity now, or lose it. (Not a dig at teenagers, I think it’s perfectly reasonable not to know what the hell you want to do at 17 and stupid of society to expect you to make such a massive commitment with no alternative).
* note that there is no evidence that increased numbers has affected graduate earnings. You are still much more likely to earn a lot more with a degree, even if there are 10x as many people with degrees as 20 years ago.
I'd broadly agree, however I believe that all higher education should be freely available and that the skill sets developed are not always wasted. A degree, after all demonstrates capability, and ability to analyse and structure thought. Even a degree in those often derided subjects provide some level of higher abstraction.
I also agree that our timetable for the young is somewhat forced, but it must be balanced with the knowledge that the absorption and retention of knowledge becomes more challenging as you age. From experience I know this too be true, however people in their 20s and 30s can easily master new skills when challenged. Those of us who are a little older can still manage a change in direction, but it's a bit more effort.
I've long been of the opinion that a degree should be free. There is always a debate about wether the tax payers or the students should foot the bill. What is never pointed out is that today's students ARE tomorrows tax payers. And because of their education, on average will pay an awful lot more tax throughout their lifetimes.
I was more fortunate than today's students because my fees were only 1k, and was covered anyway because I come from a low income family. Students graduating with at least £27k of debt is crazy.
I was more fortunate than today's students because my fees were only 1k, and was covered anyway because I come from a low income family. Students graduating with at least £27k of debt is crazy.
I'm currently at £55k. 3 years at 9k fees plus one year at 6k (foundation year), plus ~3k a year in maintenance loan plus 10k postgrad loan.
Oh and 10k from the co-op in the form of a career development loan.
So 55k from the government and 10k from the co-op.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Why shouldn't Remain MPs form a single issue party if that single issue is deemed to be the greatest challenge facing the nation?
.....
The response? It's complicated. It's not a single issue thing. There are lots of issues at General Elections, as though building new bus stops in Banbury was on a par with the UK's GDP contracting by 10% or whatever.
You lot can't have it both ways.
A less polite person than myself might call this hypocrisy...
Ask, and you shall receive. With luck they'll be a centre right, neo-liberal party. That would really cause a ruckus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herbington wrote: ... There is always a debate about wether the tax payers or the students should foot the bill. What is never pointed out is that today's students ARE tomorrows tax payers. And because of their education, on average will pay an awful lot more tax throughout their lifetimes....
There is also this rather unpleasant and patronising right wing mantra that it is unfair that a factory worker should pay for the education of a student who will go onto earn more than them. They are attempting to use the politics of envy here, as if that factory worker will not benefit from living in a country full of UK educated engineers, doctors, teachers, social workers and the myriad other trades and careers that require specialist learning.
Glad to see we're still setting the bar so high here.
On the other hand it seems likely that significant segments of the UK population voted for deadly clashes over petrol, cool looking leather outfits and, if we're lucky, Tina Turner ruling over us as some form of Queen, so who are these elites to stand in the way of the people eh ?
Of course Tina Turner is now a Swiss citizen so, once again, the hard working and slightly irradiated workers of the UK have yet another unelected European ruling over us/our water.
The crucial point is that May insists that education has to be fair to tax payers. feth tax payers, I say, I"m a tax payer, my daughter will be a tax payer, what you really mean is you don't want to tax the rich more.
Of course she is. It's standard Tory line:
"It should be fair to tax payers" I.E cost the government as little as possible. "We cut taxes! Yay!"
"Anything paid by the tax payer is inefficient" I.E we think private sector could do better.
* note that there is no evidence that increased numbers has affected graduate earnings. You are still much more likely to earn a lot more with a degree, even if there are 10x as many people with degrees as 20 years ago.
The graduate premium however is highly debatable in the first place. It is hugely impacted by a small number of courses that have high pay almost guaranteed, but those are the AAA courses, like medicine and law. It is also hugely impacted by the fact that that it is very unlikely that someone who goes to university was ever going to end up in a minimum wage dead end job long term.
I also agree that our timetable for the young is somewhat forced, but it must be balanced with the knowledge that the absorption and retention of knowledge becomes more challenging as you age. From experience I know this too be true, however people in their 20s and 30s can easily master new skills when challenged. Those of us who are a little older can still manage a change in direction, but it's a bit more effort.
There is plenty of evidence that late teens is just about the worst time to be taking these major life choices.
Steve steveson wrote: It is also hugely impacted that it is very unlikely that someone who goes to university was ever going to end up in a minimum wage dead end job long term.
Yup, if my partners job search is anything remotely representative of the graduate job market, there are a ton of jobs in recruitment.
Why that needs a degree, I don't know. And how there can apparently be more recruitment jobs than any other kind? That is a paradox.
Glad to see we're still setting the bar so high here.
On the other hand it seems likely that significant segments of the UK population voted for deadly clashes over petrol, cool looking leather outfits and, if we're lucky, Tina Turner ruling over us as some form of Queen, so who are these elites to stand in the way of the people eh ?
Of course Tina Turner is now a Swiss citizen so, once again, the hard working and slightly irradiated workers of the UK have yet another unelected European ruling over us/our water.
TBF, he's probably right. Brexit on its own won't produce a Mad Max like scenario in the UK. That would require at least some catastrophic climate change, or nuclear exchange, which is, I'm sure you'd agree absolutely impossible in today's socio-political environment.
I also agree that our timetable for the young is somewhat forced, but it must be balanced with the knowledge that the absorption and retention of knowledge becomes more challenging as you age. From experience I know this too be true, however people in their 20s and 30s can easily master new skills when challenged. Those of us who are a little older can still manage a change in direction, but it's a bit more effort.
There is plenty of evidence that late teens is just about the worst time to be taking these major life choices.
On the other hand it seems likely that significant segments of the UK population voted for deadly clashes over petrol, cool looking leather outfits and, if we're lucky, Tina Turner ruling over us as some form of Queen, so who are these elites to stand in the way of the people eh ?
Of course Tina Turner is now a Swiss citizen so, once again, the hard working and slightly irradiated workers of the UK have yet another unelected European ruling over us/our water.
England can look forward to me as her new Prime Minister "Lord Humungus" I find the oppositions position to be 'delicious' but in fairness will keep cannibalism restricted to certain parts of London and Wales. Because you know nothing stops a Welshman once he has the taste for human flesh. London it's just a matter of business as usual.
Jadenim wrote: I’d love to support abolishing fees entirely, but given the vast increase in numbers* from when university was free, I’m not sure it’s a viable proposition.
It's free up here and the sky hasn't fallen in. Plus loans (for living costs etc) are capped at inflation.
We want educated people; they contribute more to society and make better decisions.
What I don't understand with the English system is that the people who pay it back tend to be paying a reasonable amount if tax anyway, and those that don't get it written off (so the taxpayer is paying fir it anyway). So why not drop all the waste and just make it free at use?
Maybe have a small graduate endowment to recoup some of the money from graduates,
I always got the impression most of the resistance was from the "I'm alright, Jack" mentality that keeps the Tories in power. If they don't need to pay it now (because they graduated when it was free 40 years ago), or paid for a prestigious place, why should the plebs get it for free?
I was more fortunate than today's students because my fees were only 1k, and was covered anyway because I come from a low income family. Students graduating with at least £27k of debt is crazy.
I'm currently at £55k. 3 years at 9k fees plus one year at 6k (foundation year), plus ~3k a year in maintenance loan plus 10k postgrad loan.
Oh and 10k from the co-op in the form of a career development loan.
So 55k from the government and 10k from the co-op.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Student loans should match interest rates. Doing otherwise is an admission it’s a profit making exercise, but we’ve been told for years it to fund the university courses.
Student loans are a mess, over the last 10+ years there have been so many different deals with the amounts borrowed, the interest, when you have to start paying it back and how much for how long. Some people have to pay when they earn £18K, others £25K, some get it written off in later life but others carry it forever. And it’s all people who benefited from free university who are screwing the younger generations. Just like with housing, jobs and pensions. Sigh.
I know right?
I don’t know the alternative should be though. A graduate tax is too easily avoided. You could fund it out of general taxation but you’d need a lot more of it. I’ve got two ideas for that though; cleverer corporation tax that can’t be avoided (I believe I mentioned that before) and legalisation of weed. I never touch the stuff but I think it’s stupid (and expensive) to fight it. I’m sure there’s a few billion to be gained there.
P.S:
The deadline for those parking charges has long passed and there’s still no sign of their retaliation. They never stood a chance anyway. Bailiffs don’t exist in Northern Ireland.
Steve steveson wrote: It is also hugely impacted that it is very unlikely that someone who goes to university was ever going to end up in a minimum wage dead end job long term.
Yup, if my partners job search is anything remotely representative of the graduate job market, there are a ton of jobs in recruitment.
Why that needs a degree, I don't know. And how there can apparently be more recruitment jobs than any other kind? That is a paradox.
1. It's effectively sales, and sales pays better and allows for drinks on expenses
2. There is, effectively, nothing to differentiate one recruiting agency from another - since they're all selling the exact same products - You.
3. Competitive advantage is solely based on price per-placed-person or similar arrangement. That means cost cuts, and in turn a stupendously high churn rate for recruitment monkeys
4. People like me work(ed) in the field of automatic candidate profiling, which means the entrenched winners with resources to burn can take on more and larger caseloads using the same number of people, who are expected to perform better and better without actual upskilling
It's about as rewarding a career as working in retail, with the barrier to entry being the ability to construct sentences to at least a college (HND) level.
The deadline for those parking charges has long passed and there’s still no sign of their retaliation. They never stood a chance anyway. Bailiffs don’t exist in Northern Ireland.
There's no keeper liability either, so unless you told them who the driver was a court will tell them to GTFO.
What I don't understand with the English system is that the people who pay it back tend to be paying a reasonable amount if tax anyway, and those that don't get it written off (so the taxpayer is paying fir it anyway). So why not drop all the waste and just make it free at use?
Because there is such a thing as a degree level course in social media studies.
I also had the pleasure to work in the Scottish student loans industry for a while as IT monkey, and 'loan defaults' and the logic behind how they're handled is a sight to behold.
A big problem we have up here nowadays is that, yes a bunch of folk have degrees or some other form of further/higher education but it's education of no economic value *in our economy* and quite often of questionable quality. One of the true tragedies in lowland Scotland is the number of folks for which the whole 3+ year investment was a wash, not counting the cost of recklessly subsidised non-completers.
Steve steveson wrote: It is also hugely impacted that it is very unlikely that someone who goes to university was ever going to end up in a minimum wage dead end job long term.
Yup, if my partners job search is anything remotely representative of the graduate job market, there are a ton of jobs in recruitment.
Why that needs a degree, I don't know. And how there can apparently be more recruitment jobs than any other kind? That is a paradox.
It's a bloody pyramid scheme. Once you've been recruited into recruitment yourself, you have to then recruit x amount of other recruiters before you get recruited into a senior recruitment role, and again and again ad infinitum...
Given the novelty and impact of social media in the world today -- FaceBook and Twitter, etc are only 10-15 years old -- some academic rigour of research and analysis in their activities is a very good thing.
Kings College London, one of the best universities in the world, started a degree course in digital culture a year or two ago. I was chatting to a lady student on it at their open day last autumn. It sounded quite interesting.
The thing is, you can do a course like that at KCL or at Thames Valley University. Guess which one is going to open more doors in the future?
The question is whether we should be sending kids to places like Thames Valley University (now renamed the University of West London, to lose their stinking reputation as the worst university in the UK) to study degree level courses?
Does everyone need to get a first degree? What should they pay for it? Why should Thames Valley and KCL charge the same tuition fees? The idea was that cheapshot places like TV would charge less, but everyone actually charges the same.
An educated population benefits the whole of society in a similar way to pot-hole free roads benefit car owners and people who buy stuff that gets delivered to shops or homes by van. Why should only car owners be expected to pay for road upkeep? If they do, wouldn't it be better to charge them via usage, meaning by a tax on petrol, rather than a special fee deferred for up to 25 years then waived, for having a car whether you use it or not?
In other words, I believe that university education should be paid for out of general taxation. Graduates with high-paying jobs will end up paying more income tax. This avoids the time-bomb of unpaid loans which is going to explode in about 20 years.
If this means that universities have to take in fewer undergraduates, perhaps that is a good thing. We have to make sure that everyone else gets a good quality further education.
I'm not being defensive here. I've got a clutch of 20 year old C grade GCSEs to my name....
I'm afraid to say that those GCSEs, like mine, are about as likely to get you a job these days as a degree in Facebook. They don't expire, but they're considered pretty irrelevant compared to your life skills since then.
However, thinking on it, considering the supposed threat from foreign actors attempting to derail western democracy via spoofed troll accounts, bots and outrageous out-rider blogs, maybe a degree in social media would be quite handy in countering that potential threat.
I'm not being defensive here. I've got a clutch of 20 year old C grade GCSEs to my name....
Consider;
To be viable as a course, it requires at least 10-15 registered participants, between 1-4 lecturers, and perhaps 200 hours of supervised course work a year which would easily pass the £80,000 mark for expenditure. As there is to my knowledge no such thing as a professor of social media, that means pulling lecturers off different subjects - i'm guessing dept of psychology for behavioural science, faculty of arts for creative writing, maybe *maybe* compsci dept for scripting and automation and arts again for video editing - with the consequent drain in resources available to those faculties who will already be fighting to get their much more established disciplines effectively taught. This is training that really applies to one specific job, of which there are very few with eye watering competition, and someone hoping this course *alone* will be an easy route into such a position is sadly mistaken.
Now someone already doing the job would quite likely benefit hugely from such a course, and should either be funded by their employer as part of on-the-job training or wealthy enough to self-fund. It should be in response to business need, not in advance of it, since we're all footing the bill for the dropouts anyway. That is why I believe Urist O'Levels shouldn't be funded to go into such a course.
With that said, I would remind everyone that education for profit is still very much a thing, even if the US is the only nation where it's so blatantly obvious. The current higher/further education facilities outside of world class institutions are simply not rigorously policed and audited enough for their return on investment that pouring in billions in universally subsidised tuition money would not be abused to the point of doing more harm than good. The default response to that might be "We'll just have to police it better first" but consider how easy that is in the nation that Sort Of voted for Brexit, since it's a political issue of similar scale.
Yet Social Media is the great innovation of our time, a key part of the digital revolution.
It's a rich source of marketing data and things like that. Someone taught about how best to turn that to a given business' needs will be well placed in the future in terms of employment and earnings. Example? If someone is able to understand and 'translate' Facebook's latest algorithims, their employer has an edge over competition who doesn't in terms of social media visbility. No idea if that's on the course like, just something off the top of my head.
It's not so long ago some might've said the same of Computer Science. To most of the populace, computers were a thing purely of Science Fiction, not something the majority ever encountered in day-to-day life. Sure, some far sighted souls saw the potential - but that knowledge had to start somewhere. Now look where we are - all within my 37 year life time.
Apologies if it feels like I've singled you out, I swear I haven't. I'm more challenging the overall concept of 'worthless' degrees in the mind of the general populace.
Kilkrazy wrote: Given the novelty and impact of social media in the world today -- FaceBook and Twitter, etc are only 10-15 years old -- some academic rigour of research and analysis in their activities is a very good thing.
Kings College London, one of the best universities in the world, started a degree course in digital culture a year or two ago. I was chatting to a lady student on it at their open day last autumn. It sounded quite interesting.
The thing is, you can do a course like that at KCL or at Thames Valley University. Guess which one is going to open more doors in the future?
It's a difficult question. One side sits there and shouts 'academic snobbery', and the other sits there and shouts 'Mickey Mouse degrees for cash farming'. And both sides have very accurate points which somewhat miss all the good points and focus on the negative.
The Golden Triangle does tend to look down on any University regularly ranked past about no.80 by the Complete University Guide (there's a good 130 or so) as a waste of time. The entrance grades for students are virtually nil (my brother got into London South Bank with a single D at A level), meaning that the marking criteria is laughable to try and get them to pass so as to not show up the uni as a joke. It also leads to a proliferation of 'fad' courses which little educational merit or prospective career path in order to try and appeal to people with poor judgement.
The flip side of the coin is that the academic staff at most institutions are usually pumping out research which is often just as good as that of the Golden Triangle; half of them got their PhD's from there after all, but they have to do their work with virtually no funding and everyone else looking down on their workplaces. Some of those bottom ranking institutions also often still have specific areas of expertise left over from their polytechnic days which are more vocational that they're really still pretty damn good in. Others still try and focus on 'levelling up' as it were, a particular department on the basis that the rest of the place might suck; but their psychology/history/english/it/whatever department is pretty good, so some feel that slating the whole institution with crass generalisations is unfair to those departments.
So in actuality, it's all a bit variable. If it's a digital studies course run by people doing cutting edge research in that field in a generally terrible Uni which has a specific bent and focus upon their IT/information environment department, you'll be good to anyone who knows anything about the field (if not more general employers who just see the name of the uni and throw it in the bin). If it's a more vocational subject (say, teacher training or nursing), it doesn't matter which uni name is on the label, and some low ranking unis are very well respected (say, Canterbury Christ Church on teacher training).
But if you're doing Psychology at the University of Bolton, everyone knows that you only need two D's at A level to get in and you'll pass with a 2:1 if you hand in something with your name on twice a term. Making it a waste of time and money for the poor 18 year old sods who do it, not quite realising that they're sacrificing three years of their lives and a wad of wonga for a worthless scrap of paper.
I hope by pub owner you don’t mean landlord, but owner of one of the major breweries. Pubs are not doing well. And I’m not sure that working for HMRC is a good job given how often government departments go through layoffs and restructure.
Steve steveson wrote: I hope by pub owner you don’t mean landlord, but owner of one of the major breweries. Pubs are not doing well. And I’m not sure that working for HMRC is a good job given how often government departments go through layoffs and restructure.
It's a shame that pubs are not doing well, because I've been in some wonderful pubs in my time, the length and breadth of Britain, they're part of the national DNA, and it's an easy fix to get more people back into the pubs: give them tax breaks/cuts, and crack down on the supermarkets flogging cheap booze.
Maybe not pub owner, but in my experience, nobody ever went bankrupt flogging booze.
People go bust flogging booze all the time, it's a terrible time to be publican.
Pretty terrible time to be a soldier too, since we keep reducing numbers.
Terrible time to be a doctor since the NHS is so underfunded and over worked.
Taxman is probably fairly stable, as is anything legal. We'll always need lawyers and accountants.
Maybe not pub owner, but in my experience, nobody ever went bankrupt flogging booze.
People go bust flogging booze all the time, it's a terrible time to be publican.
Pretty terrible time to be a soldier too, since we keep reducing numbers.
Terrible time to be a doctor since the NHS is so underfunded and over worked.
Taxman is probably fairly stable, as is anything legal. We'll always need lawyers and accountants.
A lot of money in the private sector for doctors.
Sadly, war seems to be endemic to the human condition, so we'll always need soldiers of a kind...
I think we're at one of those watershed moments in human civilization, like when horse and cart was dominant, and motorcars first appeared on the scene. Sure, the horse and cart disappeared, but think of the jobs created by motoring.
Robots and automation are threatneting to take over, but I think a basic income and opportunites for people in a widely expanded volunteer sector, could be a good thing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Given the novelty and impact of social media in the world today -- FaceBook and Twitter, etc are only 10-15 years old -- some academic rigour of research and analysis in their activities is a very good thing.
No argument on that point - it's a dangerous and disruptive force, for now. What I expect will happen in the future is that if it does get a 'proper' academic reputation it'll be operated alongside degrees in journalism. I'll leave the implications of that open to the reader.
The thing is, you can do a course like that at KCL or at Thames Valley University. Guess which one is going to open more doors in the future?
Strictly, the one where you got a job earliest and lasted longer. True that'll usually be KCL because the folks who make the cut for KCL are motivated enough and well supported enough that they're not unlikely to just slip into their first position.
The question is whether we should be sending kids to places like Thames Valley University (now renamed the University of West London, to lose their stinking reputation as the worst university in the UK) to study degree level courses?
Does everyone need to get a first degree? What should they pay for it? Why should Thames Valley and KCL charge the same tuition fees? The idea was that cheapshot places like TV would charge less, but everyone actually charges the same.
An educated population benefits the whole of society in a similar way to pot-hole free roads benefit car owners and people who buy stuff that gets delivered to shops or homes by van. Why should only car owners be expected to pay for road upkeep? If they do, wouldn't it be better to charge them via usage, meaning by a tax on petrol, rather than a special fee deferred for up to 25 years then waived, for having a car whether you use it or not?
The way Germany addressed this problem might be the way to go. As part of the unusual post-war scenario of effectively rebuilding the whole industry at once they opened up a huge variety of non-degree level education programmes, much of which persists to now. The result was their top tier thinkers have consistently high quality support provided by capably educated mid-skilled workers who still have the option to extend their education further.
As for the road analogy, a road is usable to at least some level in most conditions and states of repair, as the alternative is starvation in some cases. A university washout costs just as much as a graduate (if not more factoring in repeat years) and may still be useless at the end of it, as the alternative is Sainsburys. This is not an endorsement of Sainsburys Soylent Graduates.
In other words, I believe that university education should be paid for out of general taxation. Graduates with high-paying jobs will end up paying more income tax. This avoids the time-bomb of unpaid loans which is going to explode in about 20 years.
If this means that universities have to take in fewer undergraduates, perhaps that is a good thing. We have to make sure that everyone else gets a good quality further education.
Graduates with high paying jobs are likely to leave the country at the first opportunity if their options are open wide enough. The UK isn't and hasn't been the top choice to live in for some time now. Brexit might actually change that ... since residency permits are an ordeal, and living/working in a better paying, shorter working hour, nicer climate EU country will become a bit harder. Or alternatively it might galvanise the thinking population to leave and damn the torpedoes if they were on the fence. CHF 10 on the later.
It's a shame that pubs are not doing well, because I've been in some wonderful pubs in my time, the length and breadth of Britain, they're part of the national DNA, and it's an easy fix to get more people back into the pubs: give them tax breaks/cuts, and crack down on the supermarkets flogging cheap booze.
It's more that pub culture is dying off - you can't have a cheeky pint and drive anywhere, people tend not to go to the pub after a hard day in the mines anymore. Social media and internet means you don't need to go to one to socialise or watch the game.
The younger generations aren't as interested in pubs, alcohol or smoking these days. I can't remember the last time I was in one other than a Wetherspoons for lunch.
They seem to be going to coffee shops and restaurants instead.
The deadline for those parking charges has long passed and there’s still no sign of their retaliation. They never stood a chance anyway. Bailiffs don’t exist in Northern Ireland
It's a shame that pubs are not doing well, because I've been in some wonderful pubs in my time, the length and breadth of Britain, they're part of the national DNA, and it's an easy fix to get more people back into the pubs: give them tax breaks/cuts, and crack down on the supermarkets flogging cheap booze.
It's more that pub culture is dying off - you can't have a cheeky pint and drive anywhere, people tend not to go to the pub after a hard day in the mines anymore. Social media and internet means you don't need to go to one to socialise or watch the game.
The younger generations aren't as interested in pubs, alcohol or smoking these days. I can't remember the last time I was in one other than a Wetherspoons for lunch.
They seem to be going to coffee shops and restaurants instead.
I'd say it's more Pub Culture is changing.
When I were a lad, it was all about going out and getting hammered. Still is for me to a certain degree.
But my local pub scene has 'dead men walking', and some absolutely thriving. Those thriving form part of the local arts community. They all have regular gig nights. My local local even does Comedy Tapas - a stand up night once a month. They're what pubs should be - social hubs. That I can have a few (6) and get (only slightly) tiddly is just a bonus.
Come the Summer, it'll be Local & Live again - essentially an excellent excuse to enjoy the gorgeous Kent weather, and have a gig based pub crawl or three!
Kilkrazy wrote: Given the novelty and impact of social media in the world today -- FaceBook and Twitter, etc are only 10-15 years old -- some academic rigour of research and analysis in their activities is a very good thing.
...
...
Graduates with high paying jobs are likely to leave the country at the first opportunity if their options are open wide enough. The UK isn't and hasn't been the top choice to live in for some time now. Brexit might actually change that ... since residency permits are an ordeal, and living/working in a better paying, shorter working hour, nicer climate EU country will become a bit harder. Or alternatively it might galvanise the thinking population to leave and damn the torpedoes if they were on the fence. CHF 10 on the later.
Yes, some do for sure. Look at Simon Schama, who is a professor in New York. On the plus side of exporting Simon Schama and others, this is part of how the UK maintains its international soft power.
As long as the UK maintains a good standard of living and welcome academic environment, our exports are replaced by foreign entrants who pay taxes; for example, 20% of the University of Oxford's academic staff are EU citizens. (You can see where this is leading...)
We also have UK teens who go to EU universities where they can study for free, and get a foreign language and some international culture. (You can see where this is leading...)
Everything in personal and national life isn't about management accounting and financial contracts, after all.
I think we're at one of those watershed moments in human civilization, like when horse and cart was dominant, and motorcars first appeared on the scene. Sure, the horse and cart disappeared, but think of the jobs created by motoring.
Robots and automation are threatneting to take over, but I think a basic income and opportunites for people in a widely expanded volunteer sector, could be a good thing.
I've been musing on much the same thing; the potential changes to the social contract over the next few years could be fantastic. Or diabolical, if they are exploited. Either way, the world will probably look radically different in a couple of decades. I think a better analogy might be the introduction of the NHS and the Welfare state. We just need leaders with intelligence, creativity and vision to find the best way forward through these opportunities; unfortunately I can't see those on the horizon.
BaronIveagh wrote: Interestingly, BBC chose this image for the 'London Not Thunderdome' article.
I have to agree it's much sunnier than the south of England.
This is the Tory government isn't it? Out to take people to undertake menial, degrading jobs whilst they live the 'high life'?
So Gove, Boris and Davis appear to be mending earlier wounds (probably eyeing up the next leadership contest).
Gove has called Boris and Davis the 'Ronaldo and Messi' of Wrexit....I'm assuming he is referring to rich men avoiding tax at the expense of others (allegedly)?
Another couple of months and we can all celebrate that only some of the poor will be turned in Soylent Green.
We're a mere 8 months out from Brexit and basically there still is no actual detailed plan.
For context: the beauty industry has put Christmas to bed and is working on Spring 2019 and we're trying to get things sorted for the 2019 student intake.
A journalist friend of mine has told me that they're having increasingly worried conversations with airlines who are desperately trying to schedule flights for 2019 with no idea what the situation is going to be.
.. It's almost like if you're running a country you cannot just wing stuff like this and hope it all comes together.
The UK aviation industry is now the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. In 2006, it transported 268 million passengers, sustaining a million jobs, and contributing £52 billion to the economy and £9 billion directly to the Treasury. The EU is its single biggest destination, accounting for just over half of passengers.
No sane British government would ever want to leave a system which has proved so demonstrably successful. Theresa May would almost certainly rather find a way of staying in. But aviation, like every other sector, is a hostage in the internal Tory psychodrama over Brexit.
The single aviation market is part of the EU's legal spider's web. It comes under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which hard Brexiters reject, and has rules established and monitored by EU agencies, which hard Brexiters want to leave.
The most important agency in aviation is the European Aviation Safety Agency (Easa). Everything you see on a plane in Europe has been vouched for by Easa - from the engine, to the landing gear, to the little trolley that goes up and down the aisle with the drinks. It's heavily influenced by the UK and France, who together provide two-thirds of all the rule-making input on European safety regulation.
If you leave it, bad things happen. All the things Easa used to take care of will suddenly have to be done by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). You don't even want to think about how much work that entails, or how many members of staff would have to be hired to do it. The level of technical complexity is dizzying.
Ensuring that the plane itself is safe to fly requires certifying 5,000 different parts. And that is just one tiny part of the work that the regulator needs to do. It'll also have to monitor the training and work of any engineer carrying out work on any plane anywhere in the UK. It'll need to have day-to-day oversight of the work done at all 172 maintenance, repair and overhaul sites. Even military training simulators for combat aircraft pilots will come under its remit.
That new regulatory work would come as Britain cut itself off from its largest market. Leaving Easa means we'd be out the continental system and back to the days of old-school bilateral treaties, restricted to flights to and fro. It would be like going back to the early 90s, but not in a fun Netflix series sort of way. Just in a really drab, irritating way. Most analysts expect there to be significant price rises for passengers, of somewhere between 15% and 30%.
This sounds bleak enough as it is, but in reality it would represent victory. Because even getting to this point means we'd have avoided several more catastrophic short-term hazards.
The first is no-deal Brexit. If talks fall apart, UK aviation faces disaster. No deal on Brexit means no deal on aviation - and no WTO-style arrangement to fall back on. Flights from the UK to Europe would have no legal foundation. Even Britain's flights to the US, which are currently validated by an EU treaty, would be affected. It would be chaos.
If a Brexit deal is reached, the transition element means UK membership of Easa would be extended for another couple of years, buying a little more time to hammer out some kind of long-term arrangement. But the third-party problem remains. Britain's flight rights and safety recognition with several other countries - including the US and Canada - both come through EU membership.
This is why the UK recently slipped out a message to world governments requesting that they continue to treat it as an EU member during transition.
In the area of flying rights, this strategy is likely to succeed. No-one gains from chaos in the air and planes grounded in a key global transport hub. The problem is with safety agreements.
The US and Canada will require detailed technical information about Britain's safety regime before they allow flights. Previously this was vouched for by our membership of Easa. But now, no-one knows what the UK is doing.
British ministers will insist that there's nothing to worry about. Our safety standards on Brexit day will be identical to the ones we had the day before. But the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) isn't worried about today. It's worried about what we'll be like tomorrow. And it is not getting anyguarantees about what a future UK aviation regime will be like, because the government is lost in a civil war between those wanting to stay close to the EU and those wanting complete divergence.
... and what are our MPS talking about today...
Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.
So David Davis splashes some cold water in the face of the leave argument for sovereignty over our own laws;
UK businesses won’t be relieved of the mythical EU regulations and standards that parts of our media have gone on and on about for decades, because many of them are already global– and in fact, as the secretary of state said, these serve consumers, workers and, in some cases, our environment very well.
At least he believes we won't be heading for a race to the bottom, or a dystopian society based around the nomadic road warrior.
Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.
I'm not sure, but I think I remember mentioning before that I thought that the man is a bit of a tit who probably shouldn't be left in charge of an empty room.
There was a very interesting interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, with one of the Brex-gak-eer ministers (I can't remember exactly who) to cover the topic of the bonfire of the regulations.
The basis of his argument was that it doesn't matter what the detail of regulations is, providing the end result is the same, and this is how the post-Brexit UK can have its cake and eat it.
The problem is that when pressed, he was unable to give a single practical example to support his argument. It was just another piece of Brex-gak bs.
I think we can all see the point of the bonfire of the regulations in the history of the Working Time Directive.
When first proposed by the EU, this Directive cause the usual wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects like the CBI and ID, saying it would lead to a Max Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland of uncompetitiveness of UK businesses, Therefore the full weight of UK diplomacy was deployed and we got a triumphant exemption.
The result is that UK workers can be forced by their employees to do over 48 hours a week, while in poor old France they are restricted to 35 hours by law.
The UK's productivity is now the worst of the G7 and heading lower, while French productivity took a jump after their 35-hour week was introduced.
In short, feth off, Brex-gak-eers, and don't come back until you've got something to say that isn't a fire-hose of magical unicorn diarrhoea.
Boris Johnson tells MPs that his bridge to France would be "entirely" privately financed. This is the very same promise he made, and subsequently broke, about every other vanity project he pursued as London mayor.
I'm not sure, but I think I remember mentioning before that I thought that the man is a bit of a tit who probably shouldn't be left in charge of an empty room.
It's a genius idea. He gets a nice shiny bridge to open and in one instant he solves "project parking lot" in Kent. Just park them all on the bridge and then charge them by the hour. Alternatively you could just charge for people coming into the UK, completely missing the point that the majority of people will be quite happy to pay nothing on the way out as Britannia sinks beneath the waves....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There was a very interesting interview on Radio 4's Today programme this morning, with one of the Brex-gak-eer ministers (I can't remember exactly who) to cover the topic of the bonfire of the regulations.
The basis of his argument was that it doesn't matter what the detail of regulations is, providing the end result is the same, and this is how the post-Brexit UK can have its cake and eat it.
The problem is that when pressed, he was unable to give a single practical example to support his argument. It was just another piece of Brex-gak bs.
I think this twitter post sums up a lot of Wrexiter MP's views on 'details'
Piston Honda wrote: It seems like there is a growing movement to vote at the age of 16 in the UK.
How likely is that to happen and what are your thoughts about that?
I’m torn on the idea. On the one hand the young are getting completely ripped off by a selfish older class who are out to hoard as much as they can. But kids are also stupid and naive. Honestly I think it’s best to just leave the age at 18. Because it’s not the age that’s the problem but participation. Old people vote in high numbers whilst the young don’t seem to bother.
Also, I’ve got a gripe coming on. I have to pay out like a fifth of my income in direct taxation (income tax, national insurance, road tax etc.) never mind things like vat and fuel duty. So at a bare minimum, I’m taxed at 20%. Remind me again the percentage of tax that big companies and mega rich pay again? A fraction of a percent isn’t it?
Piston Honda wrote: Do you believe that the age to vote will be lowered? It Seems like a desperate way to get votes from the outside looking in.
If labour get in, it’s quite possible. They’d like all those kids to have the ability to vote for them. The torries would never do it, as the young don’t generally vote for them. That’s what it comes down to though. It’s pure politics.
I’ve previously been in favour of lowering the voting age because you could leave school at 16, get a job, start paying taxes, join the army at 17, etc. all without any say in the policies governing those things (I.e. no taxation without representation, should sound familiar! )
However I’m not sure that those arguments hold true, given the changes to school leaving age, etc. Not saying I no longer hold the belief, simply I don’t have kids and am no longer young ( ), so I just don’t know how the rules work these days. But to me the principle holds; if at 16 you are considered an adult* and subject to legislation, you should have a say in that legislation.
* because, obviously, children are also subject to legislation, but it is assumed that their parents represent them.
I believe that, in the UK, you're legally an adult at 18, unless you're in Scotland where the age is 16.
Tied in with the discussion earlier that teenagers struggle to make sound choices about their life's direction and suggestions that the brain doesn't fully mature until around 25, there maybe an argument against earlier voting, and in fact it may make sense to push it back until at least 21.
However, I'm not making that argument. I think that, if you can legally start a family and work, then you should be able to vote. There's also a suggestion that mid-teens are more politically activated than those ever so slightly older than them, so why not.
The fear on the right-wing is that children will be brainwashed by teachers, well if that's the case, then maybe the right wing should be making better policies and actually considering the youth vote rather than just dismissing it? Lefty right-on teachers may even come around to supporting the conservatives, if they actually made policies that supported, rather than attacked education and the younger generations.
Piston Honda wrote: Do you believe that the age to vote will be lowered? It Seems like a desperate way to get votes from the outside looking in.
If labour get in, it’s quite possible. They’d like all those kids to have the ability to vote for them. The torries would never do it, as the young don’t generally vote for them. That’s what it comes down to though. It’s pure politics.
Exactly. 16 & 17 year olds are more likely to vote Labour, so the Tories will never allow it.
There's no reason 16 & 17 year olds couldn't be well enough informed - they have a better grasp of information gathering than most of us, and they could easily have some politics and economics taught at schools.
They could be better informed than plenty of the older voters, or anyone who reads the daily mail.
In terms of Teenage Idiocy, inherent to the age group because that's most what being a teenager is (we've all been one, we all know it's true, and completely natural), I see little difference between 16 and 18.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In terms of Teenage Idiocy, inherent to the age group because that's most what being a teenager is (we've all been one, we all know it's true, and completely natural), I see little difference between 16 and 18.
I also agree.
Also, considering how many "kids" these days are still in school at 18 (either with A levels, or heading off to university) then they have even less knowledge of "the real world".
It's also one of the reasons that I don't like career politicians. Because they too have no knowledge of the real world.
My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
Kilkrazy wrote: My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)
Enter the slippery slope arguement.
Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.
Speaking for myself, I am pretty happy with the status quo in terms of voting ages.
I think the most important thing is that political parties need to get better at energising the population and presenting policies clearly and honestly.
There are lots of criticisms around this, one of them being that a lot of voters are woefully ill-informed and operate pretty much on blind prejudice and the perceived character of the main party leaders, to the exclusion of any real engagement with policy.
However as often said before, democracy is the worst system of government that has been invented, except for all the other ones which have been tried.
I believe that a degree of porportional representation in Parliament would go a long way to energising voters who at the moment feel their votes count for nothing because they live in a safe "Party Y" seat.
Kilkrazy wrote: My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)
Enter the slippery slope arguement.
Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.
But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.
Kilkrazy wrote: My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)
Enter the slippery slope arguement.
Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.
But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.
Well unless there is a means tested way of actually knowing how politically savvy people are. The same can be said for everyone.
One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.
welshhoppo wrote: [One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.
Or are they?!?
Bit of a waste of time trying to explain the difference between the Tories and UKIP considering the aftermath is the Tories adopting UKIPs positions of "Eat cake, have it too"
welshhoppo wrote: [One of my mates is a 28 year old who's somehow votes in every election despite knowing less about politics than my 13 year old brother in law. The last election that came around. We had to actually explain the difference between UKIP, the Tories and the BNP. No, they are not all Nazis.
Or are they?!?
Bit of a waste of time trying to explain the difference between the Tories and UKIP considering the aftermath is the Tories adopting UKIPs positions of "Eat cake, have it too"
Too true.
To be honest I used to vote Tory because I used to dislike the other parties more. But I'm not sure who to even vote for even more.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the most important thing is that political parties need to get better at energising the population and presenting policies clearly and honestly.
If you could somehow force politicians to be honest you'd go a huge way towards boosting voter numbers. I suspect a lot don't bother because they view it pointless - you can't actually take what they say as even close to true, and they feel the end result is the same - that they'll get shafted either way.
I honestly think a party gets more votes because they don't want the other party, rather they want that party.
Like I honestly can't say I know anyone who voted Tory because they like the Tories, but a few that voted Tory because 'anyone but Labour'.
Kilkrazy wrote: You can force politicians to be honest by being informed on the issues and having a vote that actually counts.
I'm not sure it's possible to be informed on all issues, especially with so much garbage coming out of the press and politicians. It'd probably need some sort of reform and penalties for lying to the electorate. Currently, you can't even accuse a lying MP of lying in Parliament. You can only suggest they've mis-remembered or mis-spoke,
Conversely, the deep extent of ignorance of most ordinary voters on nearly all issues, is a situation that could easily be remedied if people would pull their fingers out and read the BBC website.
We should not let the impossibility of achieving perfection be the enemy of good.
It's not about being well-informed as much as it is being well-educated enough to be able to separate the lies from the exaggeration from the propaganda. And that's something most adults, and even those with degrees struggle with.
I mean, how many people get economics? I grasp a handful of basic principles and am aware of just how little I know. Most of the population don't even have that; yet they vote for parties based on their economic policies. They have no hope for being able to separate the twaddle from the substance.
To take another one, what about social or administrative reforms? People usually have a vague understanding of the outcome of the ones that they've lived through, but they don't usually understand the bigger picture. Certainly not well enough to make an adequate judgement. Usually the only people who understand any given issue well enough to have a worthwhile opinion on it are specialists. The younger people meanwhile, don't even have past experience to draw upon.
I've long since come to the conclusion that our democracy is run by ill-informed people wrongly convinced that they have an opinion worth hearing; who vote for mostly vapid politicians that have small understanding of the departments they go on to manage.
Which means that the winner of the election is always the one who offers the most tasty looking political cake in the most attractive (or believable) box. All the cakes taste equally bad, but the electorate forgets after a decade or so how bad the cake in the other party's box was, and switches back. Yet the key thing remains that the cake usually gets you fed regardless of how bad it tastes. The Civil Service keeps beavering away, the teachers keep teaching, the doctors keep doctoring, and generally speaking, the system keeps functioning. But it's in spite of the electorate and their politician's cake for the most part, not because of them.
Simple fix. Want to own a UK paper? Got to be a UK citizen, resident in the UK. Not Dingo Wucker. Not ex-pat.
I honestly don't care where they are resident. I'd be all for that "retraction on the same page and font as the original headline" law though.
That should make things a lot clearer than a front page headline about how Corbyn is a Czech spy, with a retraction 2 days later at the bottom of page 32, under the classifieds.
Kilkrazy wrote: Conversely, the deep extent of ignorance of most ordinary voters on nearly all issues, is a situation that could easily be remedied if people would pull their fingers out and read the BBC website...
Only if they want the current Govt line.
The problem is, in order to even start being politically aware, you have to make a great deal of effort, and be widely read outside if your political leanings.
Most people simply aren't interested, or have no inclination to research. They're just happy to plug along with what sounds about right, or what might annoy someone they're not keen on.
Simple fix. Want to own a UK paper? Got to be a UK citizen, resident in the UK. Not Dingo Wucker. Not ex-pat.
I honestly don't care where they are resident. I'd be all for that "retraction on the same page and font as the original headline" law though.
That should make things a lot clearer than a front page headline about how Corbyn is a Czech spy, with a retraction 2 days later at the bottom of page 32, under the classifieds.
I absolutely agree that should be enshrined in law, it'd make the headlines rather more well researched for a start, but still allow full freedom of speech. Tbh, any party that chucked this in their manifesto might get my support, as long as the rest of what they say broadly matches my outlook too.
Kilkrazy wrote: My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)
Enter the slippery slope arguement.
Should we then take away the vote from people who have terminal illnesses then? As they too will be deciding a future that they take no part in.
But it does raise an issue. 16 year olds aren't given the vote under the assumption that they lack the ability or intent to inform themselves on the issues they are voting on. But there is no such assumption of the elderly, many of whom will be suffering the effects of diseases which affect their mental capabilities. 1 in 6 people over the age of 80 have dementia, for example.
I really don't understand why we don't allow 16 year olds to vote given all the other things they can do when they reach that age - although its a bit of a weird list:
Have sex with whoever you want who is also 16+
So you can be detained but not go to jail
Get married
move out of home
Consent for medical treatment
Drink with friends but not buy it
Join the armed forces.
Fly a glider
Invest in premium bonds
Do the pools/ lottery
but voting is too much? There is currently no measure of capability to understand who or what you are voting for so why discriminate against this age group?
Your parents are financially responsible for you until you are 18, they are in receipt for child benefit to suppport you. Unless they want to cut parental ties at 16, they shouldn’t change the voting age to 16. I’m not sure about tax and wages, it doesn’t seem right that you can pay people less under 18, and hour’s work is an hour’s work.
Working tax credits not coming in until 25 is a joke. Either you need the money or your don’t, your parents are not obliged to support you into your mid 20s. But I don’t agree with tax credits anyway, they are symptomatic of a system that is making middle earners subsidise corporations to pay low wages from the public purse. Scrap tax credits and raise the minimum wage. Multi-billion pound companies do not need us subbing their employees so they can pay piss poor wages while their shareholders cream off dividends.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Your parents are financially responsible for you until you are 18, they are in receipt for child benefit to suppport you. Unless they want to cut parental ties at 16, they shouldn’t change the voting age to 16.
Why? That doesn't make sense, just because a 16 year old can't legally sign a contract or deed doesn't make them unsuitable to vote. By decreasing the voting age to 16 you allow for:-
Earlier engagement in politics and perhaps more interest throughout their life.
Offsetting the weighting from the larger percentage of older people voting
Allow 16/17 year olds a choice as to how government approach higher education of which at that age is likely to be the area they are most impacted
If they start a family influence government policy on families or the type of relationship they wish to have
Someone that just misses an election at 18 will have to wait until 23 until the next chance of voting; missing an option to vote on a critical stage of their life. A just missed the vote 16 year old will at least have a chance to effect this (being then able to vote at 21)
It's even more important for things like referendums where they may not then get a chance to have a meaningful vote for 30 years or so and then hamstrung by idiotic ideological nonsense for the benefit of one political party. Compare this to a 90 year old that does have the vote but mgght get a bit extra pension out of it but largely be little influenced by the result.
I also find the general idea that young people are too young, naïve, just don't know what they are voting for, extremely condescending and ageist. There are plenty of people of all ages that vote for completely stupid reasons. My grandmother use to vote for who had the nicest name. There are people that won't vote Labour simply because the Scum told them he was a "commie spy" or secret IRA supporter etc. There are still millions of readers of the Daily Fail and Scum every day that suck in the garbage they print and believe every word of it and think any retraction has the hall marks of leftist coups etc. I could argue that the younger vote are more likely to make an informed decision because they don't know what any of the parties stand for and more likely to ask questions and have an open mind.
Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: My daugher, recently turned 18 and has already voted in her first election -- Henley Town Council North Ward -- said we should consider taking the vote away from people over say 80, since they are deciding a future they likely won't be around to take part in.
(She is bitter about the Brexit referendum.)
Just imagine a younger generation royally screwed by the current generation with bitter memories. I wonder what they will do to the older generation when they get in power
Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.
Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?
We have to set these limits somewhere, and they're all more or less arbitrarily picked. 16 is just as stupid as 18 as far as any reasons go. Yeah sure you can have sex at 16, but you can't drink until you're 18, or drive until you're 17. Why should we lump voting in with having sex but not buying cigarettes? Is one really that bit more responsible than the other?
The entire debate is silly. I'm of the opinion we should pick an age, be it 16,17,18,20 or whatever, and say 'This is the age of an adult. You can now do everything from join the Army to signing contracts legally'. Pushing to move just a single one of these utterly arbitrary goalposts from one ill-reasoned point to another ill reasoned point is just wasting everybody's time.
Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.
Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?
Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day. Before this age those decisions are made on a child's behalf by their parents so strictly speaking it is the parents that are affected by whatever crackpot scheme the government of the day comes up with. I accept that there is still a five year delay though for those that miss out. However to remove that would require a more radical shake up of the electoral system. For example you could have a PR system where you can select your preferred party on a yearly basis could result in more regular and faster changes of MPs. This provides some electorate bite and could remove part of the 5 year cycle where pain is made earlier and then bribed later. Of course it does mean things can be a bit more unstable but then that might encourage MPs to be a bit more sensible.
The entire debate is silly. I'm of the opinion we should pick an age, be it 16,17,18,20 or whatever, and say 'This is the age of an adult. You can now do everything from join the Army to signing contracts legally'. Pushing to move just a single one of these utterly arbitrary goalposts from one ill-reasoned point to another ill reasoned point is just wasting everybody's time.
That's really a different debate and there is sense to allowing everything from a certain age. Trying to place an arbitrary age as an adult is always fraught with difficulty as biology doesn't work that way. There's some argument that women should be considered adults earlier than men for example. I've seen work that suggests that girls generally mature earlier because of evolutionary drivers (in that the earlier you mature the earlier babies can be had and more of them which strengthens the population). On the other hand boys maturing later prevented them being brought into conflict with existing leaders of the group until the point they were physically strong enough to become those leaders.
Realistically we should change the age to 16 and introduce PR.
Why 16 and not 15? What reason can you give that includes a 16 year old but disqualifies a 15 year old? Or a 14 year old and 9 months?
Perhaps because 16 is already the legal age of adulthood in Scotland, and many other activities are legal at 16. So it's not like its an arbitrary number plucked out of thin air.
TBH I have no idea why everything is allowed at different ages, I personally believe you shouldn't back able to drive until you're mid 20s for a start, but for some reason you can take your test at 17, or ride a moped at 16, or a motorbike of various capabilities at 17, 19 or 24 I think you can fly a glider at 16, but Ive no idea how old you have to be to fly a plane,or captain a ship, or dinghy.
Who knows who comes up with these numbers, or why. So allowing kids to vote at 16 is probably one of the least harmful activities we could allow them.
Basically it’s because we have a whole load of laws created at different times for different purposes, with no consideration as to consistency. My earlier statement was trying to get at what Ketara said; arguing to lower the voting age isn’t necessarily the right answer per se, what we should be doing is getting all of these things harmonised, so that there is a single, clear “you are now an adult” age, with all of the associated responsibilities and privileges that entails.
Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day.
I'm not sure I buy that we need to change the voting age purely on the basis that we allow some other things at 16, and therefore might as well lump it in there too. You could equally apply those arguments to drinking, and I don't think giving 16 year olds booze would be a good thing, you know? As for being affected by the government of the day; that argument applies equally to someone who is 15 and 1/2 years old.
16 is ultimately as arbitrary a number as 18 or 17 or 20. We pick it because we have to draw the line somewhere. As you yourself note, women mature physically earlier; but that doesn't necessarily carry across into mental development. Meanwhile; most 18 year olds are just like 17 year olds in emotional behaviour; real adult mental coming of age tends to occur around 21/22 I've noticed. I agree that it is difficult to seriously contend that someone is old enough to die for their country or marry but not vote. At the same time, it is strange to make out that 16 year old kids should be trusted to vote, but not to drink or smoke.
At the end of the day, I personally think things work out roughly where they are. I'd raise joining the Army to 18 (16 year old soldiers is not a good thing) along with marriage and driving if given the choice. It's not a perfect date, and it's as arbitrary as any other you could pick; but I wouldn't want anyone younger fighting in the army or drinking freely. So rather than lowering the voting age to match drivers licenses or suchlike, I'd actually push the other way, and harmonise it all at age 18. Just as they leave college/sixth form, start entering the real world, and parental guardianship ceases to be a factor. Rather than at 16, where half of them are still in secondary school uniform.
Ketara wrote: . I'd raise joining the Army to 18 (16 year old soldiers is not a good thing) along with marriage and driving if given the choice. It's not a perfect date, and it's as arbitrary as any other you could pick; but I wouldn't want anyone younger fighting in the army or drinking freely.
To clarify, people can join the military below 18, but they aren't deployable until they reach that age. Nobody under 18 is doing any fighting anywhere.
For some young people, joining one of the forces is the best way out of whatever situation they grew up in. It teaches them a great deal of things they never had the chance to learn growing up (not joking, one of the big ones is personal hygiene). Once they leave school at 16, if they can't join until 18 what are they to do for two years?
I wonder if that changes your thoughts on the joining age?
Simply because at this age (in the current legal climate) you now have control of some if not all of your actions (including leaving home if you want to). Therefore the decisions you can make are directly affected by the government of the day.
I'm not sure I buy that we need to change the voting age purely on the basis that we allow some other things at 16, and therefore might as well lump it in there too. You could equally apply those arguments to drinking, and I don't think giving 16 year olds booze would be a good thing, you know? As for being affected by the government of the day; that argument applies equally to someone who is 15 and 1/2 years old.
That's not really the point. It is more to do with the point you have a choice in aspects of your life and at this point you should be able to determine which MP best represents you. For example if you start full time work at 16 then you may be interested in a MP that supports more robust conditions on the use of young employees (improved minimum wage etc., working hours, employment conditions etc). It's not because, paraphrasing, other stuff is allowed at 16. It is because at that age you have your own choices to make and that these are governed by the laws of the land and that an individual whose choices are affected by such laws should have a right to influence that process democratically (prior to this age it is the parents that are affected because they have to apply such rules on to the child). As it stands a 16 year old can get full time work and has no democratic voice on the rules/rights that they have to abide by (for example). If all laws were changed so that we weren't independent from our parents until the age of 40 or 12 (extreme examples) then I'd argue that the voting age should be 40 or 12 respectively because they are the ages that you can make independent choices based on current legislation.
Ketara wrote: ...real adult mental coming of age tends to occur around 21/22 I've noticed. I agree that it is difficult to seriously contend that someone is old enough to die for their country or marry but not vote. At the same time, it is strange to make out that 16 year old kids should be trusted to vote, but not to drink or smoke...
I'm guessing you missed my link earlier that says the adult male brain doesn't reach full maturity until 25, the female brain is about 2 years earlier I believe. Insurance companies already recognise this, and price their premiums accordingly.
It was also only recently that 16 year olds could buy and use tobacco, things change. Sometimes it's good, I think this change probably couldn't hurt. I agree that 16 is just an arbitrary line in the sand, and theres no reason to select it other than it is already recognised as the age of adulthood in Scotland which is still part of the UK at this time as well as the age selected for a host of other adult activities.
Tbh, I don't know what your argument against lowering the limit is, you seem to be just concerned with the arbitrary nature of the number? That in itself is no big deal, but there is a good chance that, as has already been mentioned, if Labour get in they may lower the age to 16 as they're likely to benefit from it slightly more.
If you're not keen on that idea, then you need to come up with a slightly stronger argument than, why bother, it's all aritrary and a waste of time.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the argument is that people don't mature mentally until their early to mid 20s then I don't see whay the voting age should ber educed to 16.
The important thing here to note is 'full maturity'. And even this is relatively arbitrary, where do you place people with a mental disorder relatively (e.g. autism)? People can still make sound decisions even if the brain hasn't fully developed.
At any rate it isn't going to happen in this Parliament, so I think we should not spend a vast amount of time disucssing it.
Well given that some people think the Tory party will collapse in the next year, that might be sooner than we think!
There is a university lecturers' strike to talk about!
Completely support it. The assessment about the black hole is ridiculously risk averse and requires pretty much every university to collapse at the same time. I've been told, but not read myself as it is behind a pay wall, that even the Financial Times says the assessment the pension scheme has made is a load of dangly bits.
In other news, Andrew Neil, not usually my favourite presenter absolutely tears into a hapless, Steve Baker the Brexit minister, who has been clearly thrown to the wolves by his senior colleagues about the smear campaign against Corbyn.
He pulls no punches and is absolutely brutal. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It would have been much better to have Ben Bradley sat in the chair, but you can't have everything.
This is a misunderstanding of what it meant by defecit. It is *not* being debt. Defecit means they calculate the current liabilties of the scheme rolling forward. It is based on such things as the average life expectancy after retirement, the returns on investments .For example IIRC one of the issues the union has is that the current assessment is based on the last two years of government bond returns and these are at historically low levels which the unions argue is unrealistic for calculating a 30 year return.
A defecit is at a simplisitc level where you calcuate the contributions of the person paying into the scheme plus the return from investment minus what you think that person will cost you in retirement. As a noddy example. If you pay £100 into a scheme for 10 years and the pension scheme invests that and gets a return of 10% (£100) then the person's contribution is effectively £1100. If you expect the average person to live for 9 years and pay out £130 per year in pension then the cost to the scheme is £1170. You hence have a defecit of £70 (which has to be found from somewhere). However if say the 10% was the lowest estimate from the last 2 years and actually the average over a 30 year period someone pays in is 20% then in this case the pension pot is £1200 and the scheme makes money on your pension.
Hence it's not a debt, it's a *potential* liability and the argument is that the pension scheme have taken extremely risk averse assumptions which in likelihood will mean that if the changes go forward they will making signficantly out of the scheme
There is a university lecturers' strike to talk about!
Completely support it. The assessment about the black hole is ridiculously risk averse and requires pretty much every university to collapse at the same time. I've been told, but not read myself as it is behind a pay wall, that even the Financial Times says the assessment the pension scheme has made is a load of dangly bits.
Yep. It's total nonsense. Universities want to avoid paying a bit more. They are throwing out huge numbers, but they are totally over stating the issue, taking a number that is based on the worst case, at the worst point in the market. Even if they were correct then that's not my problem as a member, that's part of my contract. They are unilaterally trying to get out of the contract they have agreed with me, and it is part of my pay. That's USS's issue. If it is a major issue then I have no issue with closing it to new entrants, and anyone applying for a job can look at the package on offer, however, it is odd to me that USS is struggling (apparently) but the teachers pension scheme, used by both teachers and post 92 universities seems to be fine.
The whole thing is not helped by universities now threatening staff. There is at least two universities who have threatened striking staff as being liable to personal legal action for losses due to students suing the university. I can't think of a single case of striking where this has happened before. If, during the rail strikes, train companies would not have dared to make a statement like that, threatening drivers with taking them to court for the costs.
We have only recently gone from a final salary to an average salary. To go to defined contribution system will be a kick in the teeth, and probably involve the loss of a lot of people. I know I will be looking for a new job. I accept the lower pay and benefits at the moment for the good pension and security, but if they go on the way they are I will be off to somewhere that will give me a 10-20% pay rise, company car, laptop and phone without having to fight for it every three years and other benefits like discounted healthcare and training options.
Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.
They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....
Of course. It's because they know they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
I think it is more that there is greater appetite for democratic reform in the Labour party which coincides with LDs, SNP, SF, Greens and so on. If they introduced a PR system and lowered voting ages then the Tories known that their ability to be in power for significant periods of time will drastically diminish. They fear Labour because of this.
That, and the Gutter Press haven't spent Corbyn's career trying to get him in their pocket. They simply never saw him coming, have no dirt and no leverage on him.
Media Baron's nightmare that. A potential PM beholden solely to the electorate.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That, and the Gutter Press haven't spent Corbyn's career trying to get him in their pocket. They simply never saw him coming, have no dirt and no leverage on him.
Media Baron's nightmare that. A potential PM beholden solely to the electorate.
Don't forget the government of a now defunct country and their secret police!
It's not just him though. If/when Corbyn becomes PM, it'll show all MPs and potential MPs that the press are not the Kingmakers they've portrayed themselves as.
So even if he only last for one Parliament, that's ripples that will trouble them for a long, long time.
And high time too. Whilst I'm a Corbynite myself, I'd say shattering the stranglehold the gutter press have is worth voting for the man alone!
Imagine. No more secret meetings between the PM and Dingo Wucker. No more unelected foreign nationals dictating to the Cabinet for their own selfish gain.
This is a misunderstanding of what it meant by defecit. It is *not* being debt. Defecit means they calculate the current liabilties of the scheme rolling forward. It is based on such things as the average life expectancy after retirement, the returns on investments .For example IIRC one of the issues the union has is that the current assessment is based on the last two years of government bond returns and these are at historically low levels which the unions argue is unrealistic for calculating a 30 year return.
A defecit is at a simplisitc level where you calcuate the contributions of the person paying into the scheme plus the return from investment minus what you think that person will cost you in retirement. As a noddy example. If you pay £100 into a scheme for 10 years and the pension scheme invests that and gets a return of 10% (£100) then the person's contribution is effectively £1100. If you expect the average person to live for 9 years and pay out £130 per year in pension then the cost to the scheme is £1170. You hence have a defecit of £70 (which has to be found from somewhere). However if say the 10% was the lowest estimate from the last 2 years and actually the average over a 30 year period someone pays in is 20% then in this case the pension pot is £1200 and the scheme makes money on your pension.
Hence it's not a debt, it's a *potential* liability and the argument is that the pension scheme have taken extremely risk averse assumptions which in likelihood will mean that if the changes go forward they will making signficantly out of the scheme
I understand the concept of defecit, what I meant is I'm surprised that such a whopping sum can be calculated based on the, and I'm guessing here, 10's of thousands of lecturers in the country?
There's claims that they may lose upto £10k a year? That must be esxpecting to get a considerable sum to start with. I'm heading for a forces pension, argued at being one of the best in the country, and to lose that amount would slash my entitlement nearly in half.
Just more outright lies invented by the Gutter Press, and exploited by their Tory whipping boys.
They must be genuinely terrified of a Corbyn lead Government....
It is enjoyable isn't it. I've watched it 4 times. I only wish Corbyn would sue the papers that ran with the story, and as part of the settlement ensure they did a full front page retraction.
I understand the concept of defecit, what I meant is I'm surprised that such a whopping sum can be calculated based on the, and I'm guessing here, 10's of thousands of lecturers in the country?
There's claims that they may lose upto £10k a year? That must be esxpecting to get a considerable sum to start with. I'm heading for a forces pension, argued at being one of the best in the country, and to lose that amount would slash my entitlement nearly in half.
Am I unaware of something here?
Apologies, I meet a lot of people that don't understand...
Professors can be on £100k pa so it's not unreasonable that some may lose this amount. Of course one thing to note is that many have already lost signficant amounts from the previous review 2/3 years ago. Most starting postdoc positions are about £32K with readers and lecturers on £40-£50k pa. However, and especially for postdocs they are temp fixed term, around 2 year contracts, so they can also get breaks in contributions as they desperately hunt for jobs. Contribution from wages is about 8% so those on the highest salaries are paying around £10 kpa into the pension pot (+ then there is the universities contribution).
I understand the concept of defecit, what I meant is I'm surprised that such a whopping sum can be calculated based on the, and I'm guessing here, 10's of thousands of lecturers in the country?
There's claims that they may lose upto £10k a year? That must be esxpecting to get a considerable sum to start with. I'm heading for a forces pension, argued at being one of the best in the country, and to lose that amount would slash my entitlement nearly in half.
Am I unaware of something here?
Apologies, I meet a lot of people that don't understand...
Professors can be on £100k pa so it's not unreasonable that some may lose this amount. Of course one thing to note is that many have already lost signficant amounts from the previous review 2/3 years ago. Most starting postdoc positions are about £32K with readers and lecturers on £40-£50k pa. However, and especially for postdocs they are temp fixed term, around 2 year contracts, so they can also get breaks in contributions as they desperately hunt for jobs. Contribution from wages is about 8% so those on the highest salaries are paying around £10 kpa into the pension pot (+ then there is the universities contribution).
I'll admit that I haven't read into the issue a great deal at the minute, but 14 days seems like quite a substantial term for this action to be carried out over. There must be real concerns, and solid support at the grass roots for this.
The press are probably going to have a field day otherwise.
Yep. 14 days of strikes from 64 out of 68 Unis involved, and this is the first strike since the government changed the strike rules to make it more difficult under the Trade Union Act 2016, and it is unusual for universities to strilke at all, and when they have done in the past it has been out of term to minimise disruption to students. This is a major upset, and I know many more would strike if they could afford it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I haven't read the newspapers for a few days, and given the dire state of UK journalism, who can blame me,
but I awake to hear accusations of Corbyn being a Morse tapper for the Reds
It's a mad world.
Not an accusation.
Not even an allegation.
A fictitious invention of a fevered, right wing mind. Consider the Czechs have said 'hahahahahahaa.....no', and Germany has checked former Stazi records, and also confirmed it's a load of old tosh....
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I haven't read the newspapers for a few days, and given the dire state of UK journalism, who can blame me,
but I awake to hear accusations of Corbyn being a Morse tapper for the Reds
It's a mad world.
Not an accusation.
Not even an allegation.
A fictitious invention of a fevered, right wing mind. Consider the Czechs have said 'hahahahahahaa.....no', and Germany has checked former Stazi records, and also confirmed it's a load of old tosh....
That's always been an old trick from the right-wing playbook going back to the 1920s: accuse Labour of taking its orders from Moscow.
Given the support that the Conservatives gave to the apartheid South African government in the 1980s, and given the question marks surrounding David Cameron's and John Bercow's links to a certain Conservative orginisation, and given Thatcher's support for a certain South American dictator,
who are the Tories and the right-wing press to accuse anybody of anything?
I'll admit that I haven't read into the issue a great deal at the minute, but 14 days seems like quite a substantial term for this action to be carried out over. There must be real concerns, and solid support at the grass roots for this.
The press are probably going to have a field day otherwise.
Yes there is. You have to be going some to make someone give up about 5% of their salary for the year. It's not just the strikes though. They are also working to rule, so no 'voluntary support' actions for the university (covering staff when they are not contracted to etc..)
As a middle-aged Japanese woman my wife's knowledge of university funding in the UK is pretty scant, yet she immediately put her finger on a very important point:
"How is that the costs to students are so high, and the pay of vice-chancellors is so high, and lecturers can't have a pension pay?"
Kilkrazy wrote: As a middle-aged Japanese woman my wife's knowledge of university funding in the UK is pretty scant, yet she immediately put her finger on a very important point:
"How is that the costs to students are so high, and the pay of vice-chancellors is so high, and lecturers can't have a pension pay?"
Because people like you are posting on Dakka. Get off here and get on with earning us the yearly transfer! Without it the VC might not be able to get that extra bottle of chateauneuf du pape 1978 for her next formal dinner!
Radio 4 did a piece on it this morning. They had a lecturer's union representative and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckinghamshire.
LUP: There are various established methods for calculating pension liabilities, some of which give a surplus in the University fund, in the best case of £8 billion. Why did the universities invent a new method of their own, and why does it give such a bad result?
VCUB: Won't you think of the children?
LUP: If there is a deficit in the fund, could the "pension holiday" that universities awarded to themselves between 1997 and 2011 have had any affect on this?
(A pension holiday is a year when the employer pays a reduced contribution to the pension fund because they think they can get away with it.)
VCUB: There have been 35 meetings on the pension issue in the last year without reaching an agreement. [It's the lecturers' fault for not rolling over and dying.]
I was just reading back about the change to the pension that happened in 2014/15. Apparently then there was a deficit in the fund of £13 billion, going on the USS "The world is ending" claims then. So in 3 years it has gone from £13billion to £6billion. If it is going down at that rate, what's the need to change?
This is a misunderstanding of what it meant by defecit. It is *not* being debt. Defecit means they calculate the current liabilties of the scheme rolling forward. It is based on such things as the average life expectancy after retirement, the returns on investments .For example IIRC one of the issues the union has is that the current assessment is based on the last two years of government bond returns and these are at historically low levels which the unions argue is unrealistic for calculating a 30 year return.
A defecit is at a simplisitc level where you calcuate the contributions of the person paying into the scheme plus the return from investment minus what you think that person will cost you in retirement. As a noddy example. If you pay £100 into a scheme for 10 years and the pension scheme invests that and gets a return of 10% (£100) then the person's contribution is effectively £1100. If you expect the average person to live for 9 years and pay out £130 per year in pension then the cost to the scheme is £1170. You hence have a defecit of £70 (which has to be found from somewhere). However if say the 10% was the lowest estimate from the last 2 years and actually the average over a 30 year period someone pays in is 20% then in this case the pension pot is £1200 and the scheme makes money on your pension.
Hence it's not a debt, it's a *potential* liability and the argument is that the pension scheme have taken extremely risk averse assumptions which in likelihood will mean that if the changes go forward they will making signficantly out of the scheme
I understand the concept of defecit, what I meant is I'm surprised that such a whopping sum can be calculated based on the, and I'm guessing here, 10's of thousands of lecturers in the country?
There's claims that they may lose upto £10k a year? That must be esxpecting to get a considerable sum to start with. I'm heading for a forces pension, argued at being one of the best in the country, and to lose that amount would slash my entitlement nearly in half.
Am I unaware of something here?
It is expected to slash entitlement by half. I would guess it is probably not as good as the army pension, but average pay is probably higher, but I could be wrong. It will also contain a little exaggeration.
Kilkrazy wrote: Radio 4 did a piece on it this morning. They had a lecturer's union representative and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckinghamshire.
LUP: There are various established methods for calculating pension liabilities, some of which give a surplus in the University fund, in the best case of £8 billion. Why did the universities invent a new method of their own, and why does it give such a bad result?
VCUB: Won't you think of the children?
LUP: If there is a deficit in the fund, could the "pension holiday" that universities awarded to themselves between 1997 and 2011 have had any affect on this?
(A pension holiday is a year when the employer pays a reduced contribution to the pension fund because they think they can get away with it.)
VCUB: There have been 35 meetings on the pension issue in the last year without reaching an agreement. [It's the lecturers' fault for not rolling over and dying.]
Apparently and from what I have been told the VC at Buckinghamshire is the poster child of the Tories for a VC operating a University. Basically a treadmill business running staff as hard as possible to maximise income.
It doesn't then surprise me that this person is also taking the Tory mantra to heart of answering a question with a completely random response (that has nothing to do with the original question).
Not completely random responses, but responses that offer a specious attack on the other side's position.
I.e. "Won't you think of the children," is saying that the students have worked hard all their lives to get where they are, and it's not right for the staff to jeopardise that, while simulatenously ignoring the fact that the staff have worked hard all their lives to get where they are, and it's not right for their employer to jeopardise that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not completely random responses, but responses that offer a specious attack on the other side's position.
I.e. "Won't you think of the children," is saying that the students have worked hard all their lives to get where they are, and it's not right for the staff to jeopardise that, while simulatenously ignoring the fact that the staff have worked hard all their lives to get where they are, and it's not right for their employer to jeopardise that.
Well, it's not a completely random response, otherwise it would just be a jumble of random words . However it was more in context that the type of answer you get is random in that it is relatively unpredictable as they can attack anything, from anywhere or anytime that both deflects from the question; is difficult to counter (because the response could be anything) and destroys any ability to have a rationale argument. If both sides did the same thing then you get a string of pointless points that have nothing to do with the topic initially submitted for discussion.
That’s not regular academics, that’s not lecturing staff and postgrads, the people actually running the university courses. The chancellors are a minority on unjustifiably silly money, don’t assume they account for ‘academia’.
Dame Prof Breakwell came under such heavy fire she was unable to justify it and bailed, though she gets a year's pay in lieu of notice, and a £31,000 car loan written off. It's all right for some.
The VC of Oxford University was on the radio a few weeks ago, and was in pretty heavy going on the pay issue, and she is on half that money and running one of the top five universities in the world.
(For disclosure, I work there, in the bit that makes money to keep the rest of it going.)
With a bit of luck, Fat Cat Pay and the Chumocracy may now be hitting the same kind of bumpers as sex harassment in the media, equal pay for women and so on.
OUR CLIENT: RT HON JEREMY CORBYN MP DEFAMATORY TWEET
We act for the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP.
This is a Letter of Claim for the purposes of the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation. The prospective Claimant is our client, the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP. The prospective Defendant is you, Mr Ben Bradley MP.
Yesterday, 19 February 2018, you published the following tweet on your Twitter account, Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp):
“Corbyn sold British secrets to communist spies...get some perspective mate!! Your priorities are a bit awry! # AreYouSerious”
Your statement that our client sold British secrets to communist spies is untrue. The inference that our client, whom you know to be the Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party, had engaged in criminal acts of treachery and spying could not be more seriously harmful of a British citizen, let alone such a prominent politician. As the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party you are fully aware of the serious harm that was caused or was likely to be caused to our client’s reputation by your defamatory statement.
The natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client engaged in criminal activity at the most serious level. For example, espionage and serious breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911; that he acted in a manner which was/is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom; that he colluded with representatives of the secret services of foreign states to the detriment of the national interests of the United Kingdom, putting its citizens and its allies at serious risk of harm by passing confidential secret information to foreign agents/intelligence officers. Furthermore the natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client made financial gain for such criminal acts and espionage.
Our client’s reputation has been or is likely to be seriously harmed by your publication of the offending tweet and by re-tweets. Furthermore, your tweet has been quoted in full in the Guardian newspaper, the Mirror newspaper, the Huffington Post, Sky News, the Mail Online and has been paraphrased in other national print newspapers, and online, which is unsurprising given your own high profile within the Conservative Party and your status as an MP.
Our client instructed us yesterday evening and we advised his office to put out an immediate statement notifying you and others of the fact that he had taken legal advice and that the tweet should be deleted from your Twitter account. We note that you have removed the tweet but nevertheless serious harm has been caused by your libellous statement.
Next Steps
Our client requires you to immediately agree to take the following steps:
1. Provide a written undertaking, in terms to be agreed with us, that you will not repeat the defamatory statement identified above in your offending tweet or utter or publish any allegations/statements to similar effect about our client on Twitter or on any other social media platform or in any other form both written and oral.
2. Immediately agree to publish on your Twitter account an apology, in terms to be agreed with us, and with the additional statement that you will ask your followers to retweet your apology.
3. Agree to pay a sum of money direct to a charity of our client’s choice, in lieu of damages payable to our client for the injury you have caused to his reputation and also for the embarrassment and distress caused to him by your defamatory statement. We invite your proposals by return with regard to the amount that you will pay which we would expect to be substantial, as our client’s attitude towards the level of payment will take into account the speed with which you make sensible proposals or not. Our client does not seek any personal financial benefit from this litigation and if you force him to issue proceedings and recover substantial damages through the courts he will donate the damages to a charity of his choice.
4. Pay our client’s legal costs incurred in relation to this matter. If you delay the resolution of this case our client will commence legal proceedings against you in the High Court and our client will seek from you not only his basic legal costs but also a success fee (as our client has agreed a Conditional Fee Agreement which provides for a success fee) and payment of an after the event insurance premium. If proceedings are commenced legal costs payable by you will increase significantly, especially if the matter proceeds to a full trial. Your swift agreement to the matters set out in the numbered paragraphs above will assist you in limiting your exposure to our client’s legal costs. Any failure by you to respond swiftly will undoubtedly mean that our client’s legal costs will increase significantly.
We look forward to your immediate and positive response. If there is any delay our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings against you for damages and ancillary relief for defamation without further notice. In that event, our client will rely on the terms of this letter and the lack of an adequate response, by drawing your conduct to the attention of the Court.
Please indicate if you intend to nominate solicitors to accept service of proceedings on your behalf, should you seek to defend this claim."
I assume the idea behind this spy nonsense is to act as a distraction from the cabinets Checkers trip? How long until Johnson or Gove sticks there arse out of a No10 window so no one talks about the latest Brexit forecasts?
Sure you may actually have been a slave but that doesn't count as employment.
At this point I would quite happily hand in my passport and abandon the country. It is so sad that the country is being run by a few bigoted, racist donkey-caves that can't see that beneath the skin there are real people that they are affecting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: .. As you may have heard UKIP lost control of Thanet council -- the only council in the country they controlled.
..... so a new leader has had to be appointed..
Spoiler:
...well.. they do say you get a bit more rightwing as you get older eh ?
I think there would be riots. Having an alien run the Council in the area...surely not!
Ben Bradley is the odious little cretin who had a blog 6 years ago when he was in his early 20's containing such charming ditties as;
"Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can't afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free," his post read.
"Families who have never worked a day in their lives having four or five kids and the rest of us having one or two means it's not long before we're drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!"
With luck, the damages will financially cripple the little gobshite, and he may have to experience what life is like living hand to mouth at the behest of others.
My biggest hope that it might dent the use of smear tactics, and the tories might start to engage on policy.
It may also force a little integrity into proceedings?
It's also a wonderful punch in the mouth for the right wing press, they've been made to look like fools, and their foolishness has had in impact on their perceived power, maybe their influence in the corridors of power may begin to wane?
The best bit is that Corbyn has come out swinging, and shown that he's not to be messed about with and will hold his own. My respect for the man has increased slightly because of that.
There were smear campaigns before social media. In 1996 the London Evening Standard got a picture of John Prescott at a party, airbrushed out his beer glass and pasted in a bottle of chanpagne.
The irony of the current anti-Corbyn campaign is that in post-WW2 history there have been a lot more toffs gone commie than socialists.
To answer your query about a vice-chancellor, their role is like the chief executive of a big company, to head up the top management board. The chancellor is much more of a ceremonial position.
Every university has a chancellor. Generally someone famous who they think will make them look good. University of Oxford has Barron Patten, previously it was Harold Macmillan. Birmingham City University has Lenny Henry. It’s often someone who is associated with the university, either an alumni or someone who has been a champion of them or their interests. Their role is basically to talk about the university’s and show up at ceremonies, such as graduation, in a silly outfit.
The Arch Chancellor of the unseen university is a joke about how little the chancellor does.
Steve steveson wrote: Every university has a chancellor. Generally someone famous who they think will make them look good. University of Oxford has Barron Patten, previously it was Harold Macmillan. Birmingham City University has Lenny Henry. It’s often someone who is associated with the university, either an alumni or someone who has been a champion of them or their interests. Their role is basically to talk about the university’s and show up at ceremonies, such as graduation, in a silly outfit.
The Arch Chancellor of the unseen university is a joke about how little the chancellor does.
Hey, he is constantly holding lectures in room 3b.
The EU doesn't think May's away-day plan is going to work.
They would say that, of course, but actually they probably have a point.
It's not clear yet what the new plan is in detail, but it's obvious that it's going to be a pick'n'mix fudge selection designed to prevent the Tory Party from exploding.
In other words, it's exactly the kind of "have your cake and eat it" which is the UK's dream scenario, and the EU is dead set to prevent, and probably relies on a bunch of new technology and infrastructure which will take years to build up.
Ironically, the Tory Party looks like exploding this week anyway, because the Remain wing is gearing up to defeat the government's latest wheeze, and the Labour Party seems to have awoken from its slumber and is lurching forth to do battle.
Steve steveson wrote: Every university has a chancellor. Generally someone famous who they think will make them look good. University of Oxford has Barron Patten, previously it was Harold Macmillan. Birmingham City University has Lenny Henry. It’s often someone who is associated with the university, either an alumni or someone who has been a champion of them or their interests. Their role is basically to talk about the university’s and show up at ceremonies, such as graduation, in a silly outfit.
The Arch Chancellor of the unseen university is a joke about how little the chancellor does.
Patrick Steward in Huddersfield. Damn I had hoped to have him do speech or something when I was there but didn't show in any ceremony I was part of :(
In other words, it's exactly the kind of "have your cake and eat it" which is the UK's dream scenario, and the EU is dead set to prevent, and probably relies on a bunch of new technology and infrastructure which will take years to build up.
The amount of self-lies and living-in-a-dreamland attitudes of leavers never stops surprising me.
I think the main thrust of the discussions was along the lines of: "We know there won't be a deal, but how can we present our proposals so that the UK public will think the failure of the negotation is entirely the EU's fault and thus we stay electable".
It's been the gist of things all along. Davis and Johnson spent a few months using the buzzwords 'creative solutions' (as in "The EU needs to be creative to accomodate us) as if the EU sticking to its principles was in some way 'jolly unfair and don't they know they need us to keep buying wine, fruit & BMWs?'
Standard bullying tactic. Ask for something totally unreasonable then claim the other party is refusing to negotiate when they point out you are being unreasonable.
Riquende wrote: I think the main thrust of the discussions was along the lines of: "We know there won't be a deal, but how can we present our proposals so that the UK public will think the failure of the negotation is entirely the EU's fault and thus we stay electable".
It's been the gist of things all along. Davis and Johnson spent a few months using the buzzwords 'creative solutions' (as in "The EU needs to be creative to accomodate us) as if the EU sticking to its principles was in some way 'jolly unfair and don't they know they need us to keep buying wine, fruit & BMWs?'
The hard right faction have wanted us to drop out completely for the whole time led by Boris the Clown, David the Dunce, Sneaky Gove and Irritating Duncan Smith. They know May is a weak leader and rather than challenge them she is trying to compromise between the different factions which is leading to the have cake and eat it approach. I think these people are gambling that when it comes to it May will back them because they have the ability to bring the party down (and the Remainers have shown when push comes to shove they generally tend to tow the party line if there is a risk it could bring down the government) and May is terrified more of this than screwing the country over. A stronger leader would just say, "go on do what you want to do, why not just join UKIP. If that brings down the party then it will on your heads!"
I fully expect next weeks announcement will be the same as before. Short on detail and large on aspirations - the "this is what we generally want EU, now tell us how you can achieve it for us. We have the ideas, but don't have the solutions" At which point the EU will just point out that it isn't compatible with any of their other agreements or policies and that why should they clean up the dog poo left behind by the UK.
We've got to the point now that other EU countries are not expecting a reasonable outcome and are preparing for this. Something that would not be taken lightly because of the costs involved. We can point to individual companies moving but only has a local impact. When a whole country effectively puts itself on a hard Wrexit 'war footing' then you know things aren't going well.
... it's almost like we actually have an antigovernment , as if they've come from the alternate mirror/backwards universe or something.
Interesting. Sitting here at my desktop, I consider the aesthetic appeal, and insulating qualities of wax-dipped wood shavings. They're abundant, cheap, waterproof and a lovely natural colour. They'd make a terrific insulator.
I think they'd be fine to be used in that capacity, whilst also providing a handy way to get your BBQ going if you're struggling.
Obviously you'd have to put in a disclaimer about naked flames and wotnot, but i imagine that should be fine.
Well in the face getting caught lying with no way to wiggle out Ben Bradley MP surrenders to Jeremy Corbyn's lawyers without even an attempt to deny it in court
The party said Mr Bradley had agreed to tweet an apology, which will say: “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies. I have since deleted the defamatory tweet.
“I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.
“I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.
“I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”
The row centres on allegations that Mr Corbyn met with former StB agent Jan Sarkocy, whom Mr Corbyn believed to be a diplomat, on several occasions in the 1980s.
How many times have the Tories and the right wing papers smeared Labour politicians, yet the worst communist spies of the past two generations were all solid establishment -- Philby, Burgess, McLean and so on.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well in the face getting caught lying with no way to wiggle out Ben Bradley MP surrenders to Jeremy Corbyn's lawyers without even an attempt to deny it in court
The party said Mr Bradley had agreed to tweet an apology, which will say: “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies. I have since deleted the defamatory tweet.
“I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.
“I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.
“I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”
The row centres on allegations that Mr Corbyn met with former StB agent Jan Sarkocy, whom Mr Corbyn believed to be a diplomat, on several occasions in the 1980s.
I very much doubt this story will make the front page of the Telegraph, Sun or The Daily Mail.
It's still great that it's happening, and benefitting a charity too.
I always go back to my idea of, if you're forced to make a retraction, you should forced to print the retraction on the same page, in the same font and the same text size as the original, false claim.
Papers like the Daily Mail print various kinds of falsehoods on their front page, are forced by legal action to correct themselves, and put the correction in a small box in the bottom corner of page 17.
I believe the issue is, when it comes to regulation, they wilfully conflate corrections with outright lies. Foot note on page 17 is fine for “we said the accident happened on the M40 junction 9 when in fact it was junction 9A” not for “we totally lies and made that up or didn’t bother to check because we knew the story would probably fall apart under and scrutiny.
Surely she must have "known" he was a spy, I imagine that there could have been payments of all kinds, and she's been secretly working for the Russians*. It would explain rather a lot.
After approximately 30 seconds of Google searching, I have concocted enough of a story to be considered a fully qualified journalist for a right wing paper.
*Disclaimer, so as not to be sued I declare that I'm using my "imagination" to describe posible sequences of events purely for the entertainment of others and to not infer in anyway that any part of this is true. But as they say, there's no smoke without fire, better Czech with Mrs May to be sure.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well in the face getting caught lying with no way to wiggle out Ben Bradley MP surrenders to Jeremy Corbyn's lawyers without even an attempt to deny it in court
The party said Mr Bradley had agreed to tweet an apology, which will say: “On 19 February 2018 I made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account, ‘Ben Bradley MP (bbradleymp)’, about Jeremy Corbyn, alleging he sold British secrets to communist spies. I have since deleted the defamatory tweet.
“I have agreed to pay an undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of his choice, and I will also pay his legal costs.
“I fully accept that my statement was wholly untrue and false. I accept that I caused distress and upset to Jeremy Corbyn by my untrue and false allegations, suggesting he had betrayed his country by collaborating with foreign spies.
“I am very sorry for publishing this untrue and false statement and I have no hesitation in offering my unreserved and unconditional apology to Jeremy Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”
The row centres on allegations that Mr Corbyn met with former StB agent Jan Sarkocy, whom Mr Corbyn believed to be a diplomat, on several occasions in the 1980s.
I very much doubt this story will make the front page of the Telegraph, Sun or The Daily Mail....
Gosh, I'm on form, better get down the betting shop. Not a single suggestion about the story on the front pages of any paper at all. It would have been nice if the Observer could have given it some prominence, with the headline;
Libellous Tory Tosser grovels to Corbyn
Or
Right Wing Papers are full of incompetent bigoted reporters with no interest in professional journalism.
reds8n wrote: The Telegraph has been in a weird place for a long time now.
I mean :
Spoiler:
.. and mind that's from their premium section, which you have to cough up ££s to access.
Its a legitimate question to ask, but , well. I can only assume that the headline is designed to get the outraged to stump up the cash in order to discover a well thought out and reasoned article.
reds8n wrote: The Telegraph has been in a weird place for a long time now.
I mean :
Spoiler:
.. and mind that's from their premium section, which you have to cough up ££s to access.
Its a legitimate question to ask, but , well. I can only assume that the headline is designed to get the outraged to stump up the cash in order to discover a well thought out and reasoned article.
Well straws are actually good for your teeth.
Maybe this is a ploy by big dentist to get us all to pay more for tooth care?
I'm amused that the Tory attempts to smear Corbyn with espionage scandals have resulted in a popularity boost for Labour. This kind of thing is just likely to make even more former Tory voters realise that May and co. are completely betraying the best interests of the country. They should be working out what they want from Brexit* and taking care of the economy, and instead they're wasting time with a Cold War style Red Scare?
*Well, they should have worked that out a year ago really
Im always amazed where is see this video posted. This is filmed by a friend of mine. We used to work for the same sea turtle conservation organisation. They've also found a different turtle with a plastic fork embedded in her nostril.
Ketara wrote:The trick is to get a permanent, dishwasher cleanable straw that you can reuse.
Whilst that is preferable (i have some), its not entirely feasible for restaurants/bars. Paper or bamboo straws should work for them though!
Im always amazed where is see this video posted. This is filmed by a friend of mine. We used to work for the same sea turtle conservation organisation. They've also found a different turtle with a plastic fork embedded in her nostril.
Ketara wrote:The trick is to get a permanent, dishwasher cleanable straw that you can reuse.
Whilst that is preferable (i have some), its not entirely feasible for restaurants/bars. Paper or bamboo straws should work for them though!
Paper straws used to be everywhere in the 70s and 80s, hardly ever see them anymore. Maybe they're the answer?
That Sea turtle video could end up being like the duck wrapped up in those plastic 6 pack rings for beer cans. Generations of kids from the 80s have diligently snipped them apart with scissors before tossing them in the bin because of that campaign.
Ian Sturrock wrote: I'm amused that the Tory attempts to smear Corbyn with espionage scandals have resulted in a popularity boost for Labour. This kind of thing is just likely to make even more former Tory voters realise that May and co. are completely betraying the best interests of the country. They should be working out what they want from Brexit* and taking care of the economy, and instead they're wasting time with a Cold War style Red Scare?
*Well, they should have worked that out a year ago really
Sat through Liam Fox on he Andrew Marr show refusing to say whether his colleagues that have said Corbyn is a ‘traitor’ and ‘sold secrets’ to the soviets should apologise or conversely that he agree with those statements. He said over and over that he agreed that Labour Left undermined us in the Cold War, but he just couldn’t find it in himself to either agree Corbyn was a traitor or say that apologies were in order for making false statements. It’s really sad that politicians are so stuck to the party line that they’ll back up colleagues blatantly in the wrong. Everyone would have more respect for MPs if they would acknowledge when someone fethed up in their own party even if they continue to support them in the long term. But this flat refusal to give a yes or no as to whether Corbyn was rightfully called a ‘traitor’, and if not then whether an apology should be made, is just pathetic.
Even more baffling is that the guy already acknowledged it was wrong, so admitting he was wrong and apologised for it would kill that line off questioning right off
will kick and scream and break the party apart over brexit, throwing each other under the next available bus. But will stand fast in the face of saying something that will make a story fething disappear.
Ian Sturrock wrote: I'm amused that the Tory attempts to smear Corbyn with espionage scandals have resulted in a popularity boost for Labour. This kind of thing is just likely to make even more former Tory voters realise that May and co. are completely betraying the best interests of the country. They should be working out what they want from Brexit* and taking care of the economy, and instead they're wasting time with a Cold War style Red Scare?
*Well, they should have worked that out a year ago really
Sat through Liam Fox on he Andrew Marr show refusing to say whether his colleagues that have said Corbyn is a ‘traitor’ and ‘sold secrets’ to the soviets should apologise or conversely that he agree with those statements. He said over and over that he agreed that Labour Left undermined us in the Cold War, but he just couldn’t find it in himself to either agree Corbyn was a traitor or say that apologies were in order for making false statements. It’s really sad that politicians are so stuck to the party line that they’ll back up colleagues blatantly in the wrong. Everyone would have more respect for MPs if they would acknowledge when someone fethed up in their own party even if they continue to support them in the long term. But this flat refusal to give a yes or no as to whether Corbyn was rightfully called a ‘traitor’, and if not then whether an apology should be made, is just pathetic.
"Liam Fox put the security of himself and his officials at "risk" on overseas visits by releasing details of his diary to Adam Werritty, the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell has concluded in his report into the former defence secretary."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The usual cloud cuckoo land policy stance by Labour with their announcement on the customs union.
I've been saying this for 18 months, but when are Labour and the Tories going to learn that Britain is not negotiating with itself? ...
But the thing is, they are. The referendum may have been "won", but the argument sure as hell hasn't been. Consequently May finds herself negotiating with a number of intractables simultaneously, the EU, Labour, the DUP, her own party, and the shadowy ERG.
This has been said before many times, for good reason.
The government needs to make a clear statement of its aims in the negotiation for the post-Brexit status of the UK. The EU cannot decide for us what we want, and they can't negotiate with us if they don't know what they are negotiating about. It's also difficult for the opposition to criticise, oppose or modify the government's position if there isn't one.
I hope this status of moribund worthlessness continues until the elections in May. I believe that the Tories are going to get destroyed in them.
After that I hope the Labour Party will have the guts to make a clear declaration of its own EU policy, which looks like being a lot softer than the Tory Hard Brexiteer wing will accept. This gives the chance to split the government's support and force a vote of no confidence based on the Brexit issue. If it doesn't happen in normal business, it will happen through one or other of the votes on the Brexit legislation.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The usual cloud cuckoo land policy stance by Labour with their announcement on the customs union.
I've been saying this for 18 months, but when are Labour and the Tories going to learn that Britain is not negotiating with itself? ...
But the thing is, they are. The referendum may have been "won", but the argument sure as hell hasn't been. Consequently May finds herself negotiating with a number of intractables simultaneously, the EU, Labour, the DUP, her own party, and the shadowy ERG.
Not forgetting of course and in addition to... a significant fraction of businesses, civil servants, 30% of the populace (though likely decreasing from polls), other governments (e.g. Japan) and so on.
After that I hope the Labour Party will have the guts to make a clear declaration of its own EU policy, which looks like being a lot softer than the Tory Hard Brexiteer wing will accept. This gives the chance to split the government's support and force a vote of no confidence based on the Brexit issue. If it doesn't happen in normal business, it will happen through one or other of the votes on the Brexit legislation.
Which is what he has done today. It's really an open goal for Labour with May trying to heard cats and failing miserably. Labour are steadily shifting towards remaining in the EU, but there does seem to be a subtle approach of letting a larger fraction of the populace wake up to the fact that it is an absolutely daft idea leaving. They are also open to a potential second referendum. Given that two years Labour looked like it was about to implode it is strange that the Tories are now the party that is about to do this (although it is a cautionary tale in hoping that Tories sink beneath the waves with a trace - here's hoping!)
Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
EDIT: Oh wait, now I know why. He’s probably going to try and align with Tory rebels and scupper Brexit altogether. And it’ll probably happen too. I should have known my vote was worth jack gak.
Future War Cultist wrote: Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
It might, or it might not.
Essentially the Tory pitch (so far as we know it) is the same, only it's not being in the customs union with special terms that make it like being in the customs union for the good bits we like and outside for everything we don't like. The whole of the last two years has been built on that idea coming true.
The crunch point in both sides is how much of the special terms will the EU grant?
Will they give up the principle of freedom of movement of people, and let us have freedom of movement of capital, for instance.
Future War Cultist wrote: Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
It might, or it might not.
Essentially the Tory pitch (so far as we know it) is the same, only it's not being in the customs union with special terms that make it like being in the customs union for the good bits we like and outside for everything we don't like. The whole of the last two years has been built on that idea coming true.
The crunch point in both sides is how much of the special terms will the EU grant?
Will they give up the principle of freedom of movement of people, and let us have freedom of movement of capital, for instance.
"We want to remain aligned in the areas where it suits us, but the freedom to diverge in those areas in which we believe we can gain a competitive advantage over you by doing so"
Ye. The two points the EU has been quite clear on being red lines right from the start were:
No deal must be better than being in the EU.
The four freedoms are fundamental and inextricably linked.
The UK government and anyone involved in leave seem to continue to believe that the EU will move on these. So far the UK government has been the only one delivering ultimatums and then backing down. The EU has been pretty consistent.
Labour's offer is a lot "softer" than the Tories' seems to be, and presumably would lead to a lot more acceptance by the UK of existing EU rules in order to get the advantages of the customs union and so on.
To which Liam Fox and other Brexiteers will say, "This is more or less being in the EU but worse because we have no seat at the top table."
To which I will say, "Durrr... That's always been obvious. Just how stupid are you?"
Future War Cultist wrote: Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
EDIT: Oh wait, now I know why. He’s probably going to try and align with Tory rebels and scupper Brexit altogether. And it’ll probably happen too. I should have known my vote was worth jack gak.
To be fair on Labour their vote support much more favours a soft / no Wrexit (last polls I think were 65% +/- 5%). They also have a generally younger voter base and those with higher education (note doesn't mean intelligence before we get remarks) also generally support Labour more than Tories (though Labour's share starts to be eaten away by LDs at the highest levels). These considerations align with peoples views on Wrexit (in that these groups are generally opposed). Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect Labour to align against the softest possible Wrexit (if eventually cancelling it completely given that population of tomorrow generally don't want it).
If we go back to the EU red lines presentation
Then we can see Labours vision sits somewhere at the Switzerland / Ukraine level.
I see Boris the Clown is also talking nonsense again this morning. On R4 this morning
Mishal: “Jeremy Corbyn is now being backed by CBI and business the Tories are not the party of business any more”
Boris: “i i i well well I well they’re wrong”
Mishal: “But they represent over 200,000 businesses”...
Boris: “One day we won’t talk about Brexit”
And also compares the NI/EIRE border to one between Camden, Islington and Westminster
Future War Cultist wrote: Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
EDIT: Oh wait, now I know why. He’s probably going to try and align with Tory rebels and scupper Brexit altogether. And it’ll probably happen too. I should have known my vote was worth jack gak.
Labour are following exactly the line they had going in to the last election. Soft Brexit or no Brexit.
To follow the argument given to remainers about voting Lib Dem, there was an election and only one party that promised Brexit at all costs and they lost what little power they did have.
This is the democratic process we have in the UK. Parliament is sovereign and can do as they see fit in the best interests of the country, but then pro-brexit voters seem only bothered by the sovereignty of parliament when it is going their way. Don't like what your MP is doing? Lobby them and don't vote for them next time.
I agree. Given that 48+% of people voted for no Brexit, and no-one voted for Hard Brexit, there needs to be a compromise arriving somewhere in the softer end of the spectrum.
if that thwarts Tory Hard Brexit ambitions, they can just suck it up. We're not wrecking the UK's economy to allow them to preserve their tax havens.
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree. Given that 48+% of people voted for no Brexit, and no-one voted for Hard Brexit, there needs to be a compromise arriving somewhere in the softer end of the spectrum.
if that thwarts Tory Hard Brexit ambitions, they can just suck it up. We're not wrecking the UK's economy to allow them to preserve their tax havens.
There's compromise, and then there's outright stupidity. The EU will never give the UK a special customs deal, because if that happens, Canada, Japan, Australia et al will be on the phone demanding the same, and the phone will be so hot, that Tusk will need oven gloves to pick it up.
And of course, having to ask the EU's permission to sign trade deals with other nations, will go down like the Titanic.
It's cloud cuckoo land stuff from Corbyn, who is trying to appease the Blairites until he's in a position to sweep them away.
Future War Cultist wrote: Why is Corbyn peddling this idea of staying in the customs union with special terms? That’s never going to happen.
EDIT: Oh wait, now I know why. He’s probably going to try and align with Tory rebels and scupper Brexit altogether. And it’ll probably happen too. I should have known my vote was worth jack gak.
To be fair on Labour their vote support much more favours a soft / no Wrexit (last polls I think were 65% +/- 5%). They also have a generally younger voter base and those with higher education (note doesn't mean intelligence before we get remarks) also generally support Labour more than Tories (though Labour's share starts to be eaten away by LDs at the highest levels). These considerations align with peoples views on Wrexit (in that these groups are generally opposed). Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect Labour to align against the softest possible Wrexit (if eventually cancelling it completely given that population of tomorrow generally don't want it).
If we go back to the EU red lines presentation
Then we can see Labours vision sits somewhere at the Switzerland / Ukraine level.
I see Boris the Clown is also talking nonsense again this morning. On R4 this morning
Mishal: “Jeremy Corbyn is now being backed by CBI and business the Tories are not the party of business any more”
Boris: “i i i well well I well they’re wrong”
Mishal: “But they represent over 200,000 businesses”...
Boris: “One day we won’t talk about Brexit”
And also compares the NI/EIRE border to one between Camden, Islington and Westminster
Meanwhile our prospective trade partners outside the EU include the USA, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, China, and India, all of which are experiencing various degress of internal poltical or social problems.
This is the world. Get over it.
60% of the UK's trade is with the EU or with countries via trade agreements through the EU (Korea, Canada, Japan.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Meanwhile our prospective trade partners outside the EU include the USA, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, China, and India, all of which are experiencing various degress of internal poltical or social problems.
This is the world. Get over it.
60% of the UK's trade is with the EU or with countries via trade agreements through the EU (Korea, Canada, Japan.)
I don't deny that other nations have internal problems - I'm questioning the narrative that is around these days: Britain in trouble, whilst the EU glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm.
Kilkrazy wrote: Meanwhile our prospective trade partners outside the EU include the USA, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, China, and India, all of which are experiencing various degress of internal poltical or social problems.
This is the world. Get over it.
60% of the UK's trade is with the EU or with countries via trade agreements through the EU (Korea, Canada, Japan.)
I don't deny that other nations have internal problems - I'm questioning the narrative that is around these days: Britain in trouble, whilst the EU glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm.
Who's narrative is that? I have never seen it. I think everyone excepts the fact that the EU is not perfect, but it is a better choice for us than leaving.
Or is this more of the exaggeration from the leave camp?
Kilkrazy wrote: Meanwhile our prospective trade partners outside the EU include the USA, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, China, and India, all of which are experiencing various degress of internal poltical or social problems.
This is the world. Get over it.
60% of the UK's trade is with the EU or with countries via trade agreements through the EU (Korea, Canada, Japan.)
I don't deny that other nations have internal problems - I'm questioning the narrative that is around these days: Britain in trouble, whilst the EU glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm.
This statement seems slightly ironic given that from what I recall you are very pro-independent Scotland?
Considering the EU negotiations they are remarkably stable with very little divergence publicly from the 27 nations. Unlike the UK which can't decide anything at all useful about Wrexit (partly due to the way it was framed in the first place). Yes there are issues. Add in a society of more than one human and there always will be. The important thing is whether the group of countries can come to an agreed consensus on how to deal with these issues.
There’s the issues with Poland and Hungry. There’s Italy, a ticking time bomb in more ways than one. But there’s no point focusing on that. That’s just another distraction.
I know that remaining in the CU will render the whole thing pointless. Maybe that is the point. More sabotage from a pm who backed remain. Or I would be thinking that if she wasn’t so fething stupid.
Yeah I think it's less sabotage and realising you can't do the impossible with no majority and no real mandate from the people.
Just like whatever will happen with the Irish border later.
Though that could run for ages, I've seen some claim that cameras and random spot checks don't make it a hard border.
Future War Cultist wrote: There’s the issues with Poland and Hungry. There’s Italy, a ticking time bomb in more ways than one. But there’s no point focusing on that. That’s just another distraction.
I know that remaining in the CU will render the whole thing pointless. Maybe that is the point. More sabotage from a pm who backed remain. Or I would be thinking that if she wasn’t so fething stupid.
The Balkans, which to be fair, has been a clusterfeth for a lot of people pre-EU, is looking to be another major pain in the rear for the EU.
Russia can wage a soft power 'war' there, Turkey has influence there, and even China is sticking its beak in with major investment.
The EU is in a catch-22 in the Balkans. If it expands, it throws good money at corrupt governments and has more people moving around, which only adds to immigration fears in other EU nations, and if it does nothing, then it risks losing influence to China/Russia/Turkey.
The EU, being the EU, will do nothing, or will react at glacial pace, fudge it in the hope that something happens, and in the end, will probably see the Balkans slip through its grasp...
Kilkrazy wrote: Meanwhile our prospective trade partners outside the EU include the USA, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, China, and India, all of which are experiencing various degress of internal poltical or social problems.
This is the world. Get over it.
60% of the UK's trade is with the EU or with countries via trade agreements through the EU (Korea, Canada, Japan.)
I don't deny that other nations have internal problems - I'm questioning the narrative that is around these days: Britain in trouble, whilst the EU glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm.
Who's narrative is that? I have never seen it. I think everyone excepts the fact that the EU is not perfect, but it is a better choice for us than leaving.
Or is this more of the exaggeration from the leave camp?
Cast your eyes over The Guardian newspaper if you want proof of where my narrative is coming from.
As far as the Guardian is concerned, Brexit is a greater calamity than the Black Death and Genghis Khan combined.
David Davis has found it necessary to assure the country that Brexit would not be as bad as a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland, inarguably a worse situation than Black Death plus Ghengis Khan.
The difficulty in getting out of the EU just demonstrates how much it’s taken over us. It was only ever one way.
Also, I guess Davis had to say that on account of all the remoaner screeching going on. We were told we’d sink beneath the waves, that WW3 would break out, and so on. None stop screaming.
It's really not about the EU taking over us. It's just that trade in the modern world is increasingly international, and economies thus increasingly interconnected. Leaving the EU would be an attempt to be isolationist, but a failed attempt. We don't have the manufacturing or agricultural skills and infrastructure to go it alone any more. We're primarily a service economy and that relies on trade. There is no hard Brexit option that will not be an economic disaster. If we do have to Brexit, the best we can hope is to agree to whichever EU conditions (probably the four freedoms) they insist on so that we stay in the common market.
Kilkrazy wrote: David Davis has found it necessary to assure the country that Brexit would not be as bad as a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland, inarguably a worse situation than Black Death plus Ghengis Khan.
Ian Sturrock wrote: It's really not about the EU taking over us. It's just that trade in the modern world is increasingly international, and economies thus increasingly interconnected. Leaving the EU would be an attempt to be isolationist, but a failed attempt. We don't have the manufacturing or agricultural skills and infrastructure to go it alone any more. We're primarily a service economy and that relies on trade. There is no hard Brexit option that will not be an economic disaster. If we do have to Brexit, the best we can hope is to agree to whichever EU conditions (probably the four freedoms) they insist on so that we stay in the common market.
Example given: The Mini plant at Cowley in Oxford gets engines from Austria which contain spark plugs from Germany, and crankshafts from France that have been finished in Britain. Half the built cars are then exported to the EU.
You can see why the car industry doesn't like not having a customs union.
That's all bad enough.
The UK's problem is that our product import/export industry is much less important that our intellectual services industries (drugs, design, advertising, finance, law, software, etc.)
These sunrise industries are not covered by a simple customs union like Turkey has, so we need a very special deal of the kind that doesn't exist anywhere in the world outside the EU and is still not perfected within the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: David Davis has found it necessary to assure the country that Brexit would not be as bad as a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland, inarguably a worse situation than Black Death plus Ghengis Khan.
Make of that what you will.
I beg to differ.
I'm a big fan of the Mad Max movies.
I love Fallout too.
So do I but wouldn't want to live in them - not unless I got a major Physical and Psychic boost.
Ian Sturrock wrote: It's really not about the EU taking over us. It's just that trade in the modern world is increasingly international, and economies thus increasingly interconnected. Leaving the EU would be an attempt to be isolationist, but a failed attempt. We don't have the manufacturing or agricultural skills and infrastructure to go it alone any more. We're primarily a service economy and that relies on trade. There is no hard Brexit option that will not be an economic disaster. If we do have to Brexit, the best we can hope is to agree to whichever EU conditions (probably the four freedoms) they insist on so that we stay in the common market.
I've never denied that we don't live in an inter-connected world where business and fiancé move around, but there needs to be democratic and social balance.
Huge swathes of the globe are being exploited in Africa and Asia, hundreds of millions of people we're talking about here.
Even in the West, in Europe and the USA, millions have also been flung on the scrap heap as globalisation powers ahead and we get Trump and Brexit.
EU defenders always say that's why we need to the EU, to reduce some of these problems, but a lot of these problems were created in Europe by the EU - freedom of movement, letting Greece join the EU (even though they knew full well it was not up to it) and so on...
What annoys me the most is business concerns being spouted left, right, and centre. Obviously, business is important for wealth and prosperity, but if your know your history, business was happy to ally itself with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and would have children working down the coal mines if they thought they could get away with it.
Business needs to be respected, but kept away at arm's length from politics and democracy, otherwise we end up like the USA - money buying elections, and all the corruption that brings.
Business is like fire. It will warm you, it will cook your food, but it will burn you if you're not careful.
Kilkrazy wrote: David Davis has found it necessary to assure the country that Brexit would not be as bad as a Mad Max style post-apocalyptic wasteland, inarguably a worse situation than Black Death plus Ghengis Khan.
Make of that what you will.
I beg to differ.
I'm a big fan of the Mad Max movies.
I love Fallout too.
So do I but wouldn't want to live in them - not unless I got a major Physical and Psychic boost.
I don't deny that other nations have internal problems - I'm questioning the narrative that is around these days: Britain in trouble, whilst the EU glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm.
Who's narrative is that? I have never seen it. I think everyone excepts the fact that the EU is not perfect, but it is a better choice for us than leaving.
Or is this more of the exaggeration from the leave camp?
Cast your eyes over The Guardian newspaper if you want proof of where my narrative is coming from.
As far as the Guardian is concerned, Brexit is a greater calamity than the Black Death and Genghis Khan combined.
So you are doing nothing to back your point up, just point vaguely in another direction and hope I don’t notice. How bad anyone says Brexit may be has nothing at all to do with the claim you make that people are saying the EU “glides serenely along in a state of Zen like calm”.
Can you backup your claim, or is it yet more Brexit lies?
What annoys me the most is business concerns being spouted left, right, and centre. Obviously, business is important for wealth and prosperity, but if your know your history, business was happy to ally itself with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and would have children working down the coal mines if they thought they could get away with it.
:
I’m feeling like you are losing the argument so resorting to emotional attacks now.
Business concerns are important because without a healthy economy there won't be wealth to tax and spend on infrastructure, education, social security and so on.
Even in the West, in Europe and the USA, millions have also been flung on the scrap heap as globalisation powers ahead and we get Trump and Brexit.
EU defenders always say that's why we need to the EU, to reduce some of these problems, but a lot of these problems were created in Europe by the EU - freedom of movement, letting Greece join the EU (even though they knew full well it was not up to it) and so on...
Why are either of these representative of people being thrown on the scrapheap? Freedom of movement provides the opportunity to work anywhere in the EU unconstrained. That's improving people prospects and choices and not being limited by a few companies in one country that can dictate the terms. It has allowed people from lower incomes in the EU to work in wealthier countries spreading that wealth more evenly. Yes there are still issues, but that the wealthy aren't being taxed appropriately is individual nation's creation and if anything the EU / ECJ has done more for trying to balance these issues (e.g. preferential tax treatment in EIRE, awarding damages against Google for deliberately down rating smaller competitor businesses and so on). The same goes for Greece, yes is wasn't well off but then again that allows a distribution of wealth across the nations that is fairer and more balanced and doesn't favour a few wealthy countries.
What annoys me the most is business concerns being spouted left, right, and centre. Obviously, business is important for wealth and prosperity, but if your know your history, business was happy to ally itself with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and would have children working down the coal mines if they thought they could get away with it. [\quote]
The EU is none of these things and not every company takes this approach (e.g. several are pulling adverts from the Daily Fail etc.).
You can never extract business and politics completely. A successful country needs successful businesses and they hence need to help the government of the day achieve this. That way you can afford the services you need. What we want to avoid is excessive greed and systems that favour the wealthy and allow them to hoard that wealth getting ever richer vs those not at the top because that then reduces their ability to succeed (and not simply be stepped on).
Kilkrazy wrote: Business concerns are important because without a healthy economy there won't be wealth to tax and spend on infrastructure, education, social security and so on.
They are important, but they are not the be all and end of a democracy. Look at history and how many laws were passed to reel in business: anti-trust laws, laws against monopolies, minimum wage, maternity leave, and the attempt by business to crush trade unions back in the day, and 100 other things etc etc
Let's not pretend for a minute that the majority of business interests would have voluntary submitted to these.
Lobbying MPs has had a toxic effect on our democracy these past decades. You yourself cited the example of the working time directive the other day, when business strong armed the UK government to get Britain an opt-out.
EU defenders always say that's why we need to the EU, to reduce some of these problems, but a lot of these problems were created in Europe by the EU - freedom of movement, letting Greece join the EU (even though they knew full well it was not up to it) and so on...
Lots of government produced problems are blamed on the eu. The eu ain't perfect but it improves more things than it hinders.
What annoys me the most is business concerns being spouted left, right, and centre.
Business is kind of fundamental to the economy and let's face it; most individuals involvement with the eu is a week or 2 in Spain in the summer, and don't really know or care about the intracacies of the relationship
EU defenders always say that's why we need to the EU, to reduce some of these problems, but a lot of these problems were created in Europe by the EU - freedom of movement, letting Greece join the EU (even though they knew full well it was not up to it) and so on...
Lots of government produced problems are blamed on the eu. The eu ain't perfect but it improves more things than it hinders.
Not to mention all the complaints about "red tape" and how bad it is.
Let's not pretend for a minute that the majority of business interests would have voluntary submitted to these.
And that's exactly why we need the eu.
Indeed and lets not forget that the Tories are bank rolled by such large companies that want to see minimum controls to allow maximum exploitation of the populace. The EU actually provides some controls for the nut case, we don't really care about the populace, party.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. By choosing to stay in the customs union (or not leaving the eu as it’s also known), Corbyn has decided to say piss off to the labour heartlands who voted to leave and instead cozy up to the businesses and rich remainer areas of the south. How nice of him.
You mean all those areas that have changed their mind now they know the impact on their area? Or the ones that voted Labour in 2017 when their position on customs union was that it was a possibility and no deal was not an option? Sounds to me like Corbyn is doing exactly what is in his mandate from the last manifesto.
They are important, but they are not the be all and end of a democracy. Look at history and how many laws were passed to reel in business: anti-trust laws, laws against monopolies, minimum wage, maternity leave, and the attempt by business to crush trade unions back in the day, and 100 other things etc etc
Let's not pretend for a minute that the majority of business interests would have voluntary submitted to these.
Lobbying MPs has had a toxic effect on our democracy these past decades. You yourself cited the example of the working time directive the other day, when business strong armed the UK government to get Britain an opt-out.
Your using an example of a time where the UK government gave in to business to opt out of an EU regulation as an example of why workers are better off out of the EU?
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. By choosing to stay in the customs union (or not leaving the eu as it’s also known), Corbyn has decided to say piss off to the labour heartlands who voted to leave and instead cozy up to the businesses and rich remainer areas of the south. How nice of him.
The areas that'll be hurt worst by a bad brexit deal and no customs union?
I think he's doing the correct thing, even if it generates some brexiteer rage.
Yes! Lets slash tariffs on things the UK produces so we can get cheap imports! I'm sure farmers will love being undercut by cheap beef, tomato's and milk! What a boon to our rural economy Brexit will be! Ignoring the fact that those savings are a total lie.
lexibility is costly. And it is far from clear that slightly cheaper chicken is worth a hard Irish border, worth Welsh sheep farmers having to helicopter their produce into France (Calais isn’t currently an EU approved border inspection post able to deal with third-country imports of animal origin), or worth the UK having to introduce an entirely new third-country authorisation and auditing regime.
I'm sure it's eminently practical to airlift lamb etc etc about the place.
Red Alert warning for snow issued for where am I up here
First time we've ever had one. If I'm lucky, they'll find my frozen body in the Spring.
I still have a lot of old, rare Citadel miniatures from the 1980s laying around, so my last will and testament is to have them auctioned off and the proceeds donated to dakkadakka.
On a serious note, we often fall out over politics, but best of luck to everybody today and tomorrow with the weather.
Best of luck to you guys, we are feeling the same here on the northern continental part. My city of Lübeck on the Baltic coast was hit with -20°C this night, and we are having Russian levels of knee-deep snow like we didn't get for years up here. Make sure you don't get stuck with your car in some remote place, and get some hot tea and cocoa ready in your homes.
And since we are on that topic for a second, even though I'm not posting much here I'm a big fan of this thread and reading it daily. I'm very glad it didn't get locked like the US politics one and everybody is getting along - kind of.
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh yeah, I almost forgot. By choosing to stay in the customs union (or not leaving the eu as it’s also known), ....
Just so we're clear, he is talking about a customs union not the customs union. We cannot stay in the customs union, but we can create a new customs union.
You will be getting what you want, for us to leave the EU, and we will forge a new trade deal with the EU, part of which will be creating a new customs deal for us, or a new customs union if you will.
What's the problem with that? Especially as a customs arrangement will be essential if NI is continue in anyway as it is now.
The problem with the proposed new customs union is the trade-offs between various factors:
The UK wants
Tariff and inspection free movement of goods, services and capital.
The right to negotiate trade deals outside the EU without EU oversight.
No EU immigration.
No EU determined standards and specifications (no jurisdiction of the ECJ.)
To achieve this, firstly the EU needs to give up freedom of movement of people.
Secondly there is a very difficult problem of how to achieve perfect agreement of standards and specifications for everything exported from the UK, which may have been imported from outside the EU (e.g. US chlorine washed chicken.)
At the moment, no-one knows how this can be achieved in practice, and Brexiteers rely on Handwavium to explain it.
Typical. I finally get my car fixed and mot’d, ready to drive anywhere I want, and I’m immediately snowed in.
Also, I got another letter from those parking berks. This one is my third ‘very final last’ warning before court action, offering both a reduced amount and offer of paying in instalments. This is getting tiring.
So, TM agrees to fudge in December, hails it as great victory.
EU write down fudge.
TM says "no UK prime minister could ever agree".
Except herself, 3 months ago.
I'd be fascinated to hear what she actually though she agreed in December as going back to the *joint* released statement we have:-
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
And in the current draft of the EUs document we have:-
DESIRING to create a common regulatory area on the island of Ireland in order to safeguard North-South cooperation, the all-island economy, and protect the 1998 Agreement;
HAVING REGARD to the devolution arrangements between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in relation to the common regulatory area;
.....
UNDERLINING that part or all of this Protocol may cease to apply should a future agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom be agreed which addresses the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, including by avoiding a hard border and protecting the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions;
So yes they are in effect identical. So hence either May didn't read the agreed document or was hoping magically a solution would be found as she punted the Ireland issue into the *slightly* longer grass. I can imagine the EU will be perplexed and baffled by May's change in view and reinforce to us all that she is effectively clueless of any ideas on the issue.
First time we've ever had one. If I'm lucky, they'll find my frozen body in the Spring.
I still have a lot of old, rare Citadel miniatures from the 1980s laying around, so my last will and testament is to have them auctioned off and the proceeds donated to dakkadakka.
On a serious note, we often fall out over politics, but best of luck to everybody today and tomorrow with the weather.
Keep warm, and don't travel until you have to.
It's only been relatively recently that the metoffice have forecast such alerts in this way. This weather is nothing compared to what they have had in the US this year or even what we had in 1962/63
What we should be more terrified of is what is happening at the north pole right now. The temperatures are off the scale relative to the median. It's incredible, but not in a good way.
1. We are not used to it. (Partly due to global warming.)
We don't have snow chains for our cars because it isn't worth it when you only need them one or two days every 10 years. The last time I wanted snow chains was at the notorious Snow Devil 40K tournament run by Ketara in Canterbury in about 2010.
2. There is twice as much traffic now compared with 62-63.
These points are much less true in the north of England and Scotland, of course, but the bulk of the population is in the south and east.
Also, modern young people don't know they were born. Central heating has made them soft and they don't have the sense to wear a wooly hat and take it off indoors or they won't feel the benefit.
All this being said, climate change is likely to cause more extreme weather events like this, so we need to get better at coping.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with snow in the UK now is:
All this being said, climate change is likely to cause more extreme weather events like this, so we need to get better at coping.
An alternative hypothesis is that if 'the gays' would just cut out all the sodomy then the weather will settle down again.
Whirlwind wrote:...or was hoping magically a solution would be found...
I had a busy day at work so wasn't able to follow the developments closely but I'm pretty sure at some point a statement was put out by someone in Government was that the 3 things that will definitely happen are:
No hard border with the Republic of Ireland
No barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK No EU interference/customs union, etc
I think I know what the brexit problem boils down to now. Much like our own DINLT, everyone involved in the process is more of a 'big ideas person' and can't really be fussed with the piffling detail, that's for someone else to implement.
The Brexit row lies in the fact that so many people know a Hard Brexit will be a disaster on several levels, but the Hard Brexiteers have influenced May to set down red lines that make a soft Brexit impossible.
And since we are on that topic for a second, even though I'm not posting much here I'm a big fan of this thread and reading it daily. I'm very glad it didn't get locked like the US politics one and everybody is getting along - kind of.
I have to say that as much as I disagree with the opinions of some people here, I do try to listen to them and I think it is worth saying thank you to everyone that we’ve managed to keep the discourse civil and constructive for 250 pages during one of the most politically divisive times in British history.
Cue inevitable, thread locking, flame war in 3...2...
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with snow in the UK now is:
All this being said, climate change is likely to cause more extreme weather events like this, so we need to get better at coping.
An alternative hypothesis is that if 'the gays' would just cut out all the sodomy then the weather will settle down again.
Whirlwind wrote:...or was hoping magically a solution would be found...
I had a busy day at work so wasn't able to follow the developments closely but I'm pretty sure at some point a statement was put out by someone in Government was that the 3 things that will definitely happen are:
No hard border with the Republic of Ireland
No barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK No EU interference/customs union, etc
I think I know what the brexit problem boils down to now. Much like our own DINLT, everyone involved in the process is more of a 'big ideas person' and can't really be fussed with the piffling detail, that's for someone else to implement.
Its that the big ideas make not one ounce of sense.
I apologise to my fellow British dakkaites for voting leave. I'm not sold on the EU project but, damn, I'm at a loss. Our incumbent leadership couldn't even buy a car with their current strategy.
Its that the big ideas make not one ounce of sense.
I apologise to my fellow British dakkaites for voting leave. I'm not sold on the EU project but, damn, I'm at a loss. Our incumbent leadership couldn't even buy a car with their current strategy.
The opposition is still as clueless.
It's called an infinite loop problem. Each idea leads to a problem with the next and you try and solve that then this leads to a problem with the next and so on. It doesn't matter who you are, whether Churchill, Queen Victoria or Isaac Newton these problems would exist for all of them in the same situation. Bizarrely though the actual solutions are easy, it's the political will to make one of them and suffer the consequences.
If the government is dead set on having control of everything and not let NI/Scotland/Wales have it's own set of rules then that implies a hard border everywhere - We sacrifice potentially the NI peace process and have to accept the consequences.
To have our own set of rules for the UK but an open border between NI/EIRE (and potentially Wales and Scotland) - This requires a border between NI and the UK (and Wales / Scotland?). The Tories sacrifice their majority and we have another election (with potentially Tories losing power) although whether DUP will not continue to support the Tories in major votes is an open question as they definitely don't want Labour.
To have an open border between NI/EIRE and NI/RoUK - This requires remaining in the custom union and freedom of movement. Tories lose the UKIP crowd back to UKIP and again they lose control at the next GE. We basically get the EU but without any say (however most businesses will have to comply anyway).
They are *relatively* (and I say this lightly because each still has a host of principles to deal with but are general ideas on a theme) simple solutions. The political appetite is what is the problem for any of these options.
As for voting. You don't need to apologise for voting the way you did. We do so for our own reasons. However it takes a lot of inner strength to stand up and say that given the additional information you might have voted in a different way. To critically analyse what you did and why is vastly more important. Yes the EU is far from perfect but then is anything?
I think I know what the brexit problem boils down to now. Much like our own DINLT, everyone involved in the process is more of a 'big ideas person' and can't really be fussed with the piffling detail, that's for someone else to implement.
Someone on twitter posted this a couple weeks ago, and I always felt it fit all those big ideas people.
"Watching Brexit is like watching someone try and plug a coaxial aerial cable into a HDMI port. There is a lot of anger, a lot of swearing, and a lot of remarks about how this used to work before."
Its that the big ideas make not one ounce of sense.
I apologise to my fellow British dakkaites for voting leave. I'm not sold on the EU project but, damn, I'm at a loss. Our incumbent leadership couldn't even buy a car with their current strategy.
The opposition is still as clueless.
It's called an infinite loop problem. Each idea leads to a problem with the next and you try and solve that then this leads to a problem with the next and so on. It doesn't matter who you are, whether Churchill, Queen Victoria or Isaac Newton these problems would exist for all of them in the same situation. Bizarrely though the actual solutions are easy, it's the political will to make one of them and suffer the consequences.
If the government is dead set on having control of everything and not let NI/Scotland/Wales have it's own set of rules then that implies a hard border everywhere - We sacrifice potentially the NI peace process and have to accept the consequences.
To have our own set of rules for the UK but an open border between NI/EIRE (and potentially Wales and Scotland) - This requires a border between NI and the UK (and Wales / Scotland?). The Tories sacrifice their majority and we have another election (with potentially Tories losing power) although whether DUP will not continue to support the Tories in major votes is an open question as they definitely don't want Labour.
To have an open border between NI/EIRE and NI/RoUK - This requires remaining in the custom union and freedom of movement. Tories lose the UKIP crowd back to UKIP and again they lose control at the next GE. We basically get the EU but without any say (however most businesses will have to comply anyway).
They are *relatively* (and I say this lightly because each still has a host of principles to deal with but are general ideas on a theme) simple solutions. The political appetite is what is the problem for any of these options.
As for voting. You don't need to apologise for voting the way you did. We do so for our own reasons. However it takes a lot of inner strength to stand up and say that given the additional information you might have voted in a different way. To critically analyse what you did and why is vastly more important. Yes the EU is far from perfect but then is anything?
Er, Whirlwind, you missed an option, which allows us to retain democratic input into the regulations that we will have to comply with anyway, maximises our economic benefits and gives us a stronger voice on the world stage; remain in the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Dail Mail once again is howling with outrage at the utter contempt for democracy that is the prospect of Parliament voting on things.
Well, they are a constant in these topsy turvey times.
1. We are not used to it. (Partly due to global warming.)
We don't have snow chains for our cars because it isn't worth it when you only need them one or two days every 10 years. The last time I wanted snow chains was at the notorious Snow Devil 40K tournament run by Ketara in Canterbury in about 2010.
Reminds me of the year I spent in England. Whole winter snowless...Except for one day with very light snow. You could still see asphalt below it. Teacher was all "if it gets any worse let's go home". Bus station was nuts. And I thought it amusing until bus started to go down that steep steep road that wasnt' wide enough for cars coming from other direction pass the bus without bus going to pedestrian path. And I remembered these have same tyres probably as they have in summer. At that point it suddenly became lot less amusing
BTW snow chains are some seriously heavy duty. I have never used those nor needed in finland. We have 2 types of winter tyres. One with studs and one with something else(which aren't quite as good doing their job but don't cause as much enviromental issues as studs that asphalt doesn't deal well with).
As someone who spends a good portion of the year up in the arctic circle part of Norway, I couldn't help but giggle at the sheer panic going on down in the south. It is genuinely funny, it's about an inch here right now. Still, screw the trains in this weather.
Because Norway and Finland have it on a regular basis. Everyone owns winter tyres and they change them over every year. We get snow once every 5 or 6 years in the UK, which generally lasts a day or two. Oddly enough most people don't see the need to spend £400-500 on a spare set of tyres that will probably be used for a week. We could be set up for it but it's just not worth it.
It would be nice to think Boris will face some sort of sanction for blowing nearly £50M on nothing whatsover, but he'll just do his usual schtick even if he faces a hearing. Or he could do what he did yesterday in the HoC when faced with an awkward question, and just shuffle out to cries of 'coward'.
Nigel Farage is still on QT, puffed up like the blubbery, pink bullfrog that he is.
However, what's interesting is that the support from the crowd in Blackpool for his bluster and hyperbole is quite lacklustre. Considering that's a Leave heartland, it's quite interesting.
r_squared wrote: Nigel Farage is still on QT, puffed up like the blubbery, pink bullfrog that he is.
However, what's interesting is that the support from the crowd in Blackpool for his bluster and hyperbole is quite lacklustre. Considering that's a Leave heartland, it's quite interesting.
'Won' yet has failed, repeatedly.
Got cushy jobs on back of his 'successes'.
Friends with Trump.
I would argue that Farage could now be seen (as he always was) part of the establishment, thus his words are ringing hollow to die hard leavers and 'kippers.
Oh goody. I can’t wait until we’re on our own on WTO terms having to accept diktats like this.
In other news, May is either totally deluded or lying through her teeth:
“She will say the EU referendum result was a vote to "take control of our borders, laws and money" but was "not a vote for a distant relationship with our neighbours".”
I think you have missed what drove the leave vote Mrs Prime Minister.
Also:
“That any deal must respect the referendum result” regardless of whether political opinion in the country has changed in the years since the non-binding, advisory, referendum.
“That any deal must not break down” despite making totally unreasonable/unrealistic demands for the EU to abandon their core principles.
“That any deal must protect jobs and security” but within the ludicrous, self-imposed, red lines they’ve already decided, which make this almost impossible.
“That any deal must be "consistent with the kind of country we want to be" - modern, outward-looking and tolerant” again, not consistent with the core of leave voters “no more immigrants” message.
“That any agreement must bring the country together” HAHAHAHA! Only even vaguely possible if you were willing to offer concessions to the remain voters, e.g. continued membership of the single market and customs union, offering a final referendum to validate the result, etc. But all of these options have already been ruled out in favour of the hardest, most extreme, Brexit possible, in order to placate the right wing minority of the Tory party.
