Has home training for doctors and nurses been underfunded?
Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?
Kroem wrote: I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.
And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.
Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?
If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.
Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.
Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!
Kroem wrote: I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.
And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.
It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?
BREAK - @marksedwill signals UK will never deploy @RoyalNavy's £6bln aircraft carriers into contested waters with a sovereign strike group. NSA says carriers will "almost inevitably - I would say inevitably" be used with other countries' ships and aircraft operating alongside
This is a nod to the fact that @DefenceHQ does not have the £ or capacity to field all the escorts/submarines/jets/MPA/support-ships to field a sovereign carrier strike group as well as continue with all other tasks
The NSA, however, did also talk about the need to retain sovereign capability for carrier strike (just didn't specify how this would be paid for...)
Kilkrazy wrote: The quotas do seem pretty arbitrary, and unrelated to actual national needs or the educational output of British born staff. While I wouldn't characterise them as xenophobic, I do question their practical value.
I don't think there is a practical value beyond pandering to the xenophobes. We need people for x but can't get the due to an arbitrary limit.
It's self treating too; if it becomes unreliable to get a VISA to work in a UK hospital because of an arbitrary limit based on who else applied that month, the better doctors will just go somewhere .ore predictable instead of wasting time on the UK lottery.
A lot of the NHS problems are due to short sightedness: saving a few quid in home care pushing people into £1000/night wards and so on. Spending more money on the preventative and early care could save a fortune.
Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?
If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.
Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.
Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!
Kroem wrote: I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.
And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.
It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?
Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.
Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.
Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.
Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.
It also opens the floodgates to definitions of self inflicted. I have had two hernia operations. The first was cause by lifting PAs and amplifiers around which was a work injury, but the second was caused by weightlifting. I could bench squat triple my bodyweight, was at less than 5% bodyfat, could run fast 10Ks etc. I was in good health, but I required an operation as a direct result of pursuing that good health. Do I get a second hernia repair on the NHS or not? Kids playing football? Amateur boxers? The student that breaks her ankle falling on cobbles after two glasses of wine? The one that does it after four?
Or do we only do it for ongoing illnesses rather than injuries? Does the person with type 2 diabetes have to demonstrate that they're keeping a healthy diet indefinitely or they start paying for insulin?
It's a monstrous can of worms we'd be cracking open. And once it's open the road only goes one way.
Kroem wrote: Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.
Maybe we could say, we will only give you this expensive cancer treatment if you demonstrate lifestyle improvements in a similar manner? Maybe that already happens I don't know.
Feth no. Its an attack on the founding principles of the NHS. Do you want to gift the Tories the means to destroy the NHS? Because this is how you destroy the NHS.
Kroem wrote: I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.
And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.
You’re also starting to enter the eugenics quandary there.
In a pure view, eugenics has genuine merit. We can effectively breed out debilitating conditions, things which are genetic issues with no cure.
But, somebody has to divvy up what is and isn’t an undesirable condition. Some might same Down’s Syndrome. Yes, it can be limiting in many cases - but in others, it doesn’t stop the person living a fulfilling life, even if some of their horizons are inherently limited. And how does one put it into practice? So many genuine evils lurking under a not unreasonable facade.
With your proposal, I can also see some merit. Consider George Best. A chronic alcoholic. He received a liver transplant, and went back on the sauce. Who else might’ve been in need of that liver? Who died so he could go back on the pop and wreck it again? Cold heartedly, and with the benefit of ever perfect hindsight, he wasn’t deserving of that second chance. But, alcoholism isn’t pure selfishness. It’s a mental disorder and addiction. Many alcoholics are able to dry out successfully, and essentially make amends. Who decides there? Where does that line of reasoning stop? One could easily argue the majority of HIV infections are ‘self inflicted’. How do we weed out the genuinely reckless, from the momentarily stupid?
How about Cancer? Take a look back, and you’ll realise many people just didn’t know the risk. For smoking, there was deliberate obfuscation by the tobacco industry. Yet a child born to smokers is significantly more likely to take up the habit themselves. Where does the parent’s culpability end, and the individuals begin? I smoke myself, and I know it’s a bloody stupid thing to do. Yet, I’m addicted. And unless you’ve ever had an addiction yourself, you’ve no point of reference to criticise my struggle to quit outright.
Overeating and obesity. How much choice does a person have if it’s a manifestation of depression, anxiety or loneliness? What if the poor sod only has access to shonky ready meals? Control your salt intake - tricky to do when one has to shop at the bottom end of the market, where such nasties tend to be found in greatest abundance?
What if someone is more genetically prone to say, Kidney Disease, but doesn’t find out until the Docs diagnose and start treating?
Another example. My Dad had a mild heart attack a year or two ago. Nothing too serious. Couple of stents, and he’s not dead. But turns out, he may have a genetic disorder which means his body just doesn’t deal with cholesterol. How in the name of Satan’s 10’ of throbbing red gristle could he have possibly known that? And if Dad has it, there’s a rough 50% chance I’ve got that wonky gene too. And my brother. Have we been reckless and irresponsible there?
Haha OK OK I won't institute my takeover of the NHS and implement this policy!
I can see how drawing the line between those that deserve treatment and those that don't is probably more difficult than just treating them all in the first place
Also, I was going to make a point about what we talking about yesterday, but I don’t want to start another fight. I’m all fought out...with (former) friends and family. I also just had a tooth out too. I’m now all out in every sense of the word, you know?
If it is not producing enough to meet demand then I think, by definition, it is being underfunded if the intention was to reach a point where the UK is self reliant and doesn't have to fill vacancies with immigration.
Whether that is due to not enough course spaces available, or the courses not being attractive for students with the required grades compared to alternatives, or some other reason, definitely needs to be examined and debated.
Ah, riding the tooth removal afterglow. Enjoy it while it lasts and make sure you're stocked up on ibuprofen and/or paracetamol for when the stronger stuff wears off. Good luck!
Kroem wrote: I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.
I have to disagree with that. People who for instance, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, pay through the nose in taxes. Their taxes help fund the NHS. They're as entitled to medical treatment as anyone else.
And I say that as someone who has never smoked, and I rarely drink.
It also raises the question of what constitutes as self inflicted. How can you prove that someone with lung cancer got it because they smoked, for example? We know that smoking massively increases the likelihood of you getting lung cancer from studies of cancer rates amongst large populations of smokers vs non-smokers, but there is no definitive way to prove that an individual case is due to smoking or not. Then what if someone smoked for 5 years when they were younger but quit and haven't touched a cigarette in 20 years? Do they get treated for their throat cancer or not? And how much would court cases of people trying to get treated for "self-inflicted" diseases cost the NHS?
Yea it's a tough judgement, maybe docs wouldn't like to make the call, but doesn't it already happen with liver transplants? You have to prove your sober for x period or that you have changed your lifestyle to receive the new liver.
... ...
I believe that is correct, but it is not because doctors believe people should be punished for drinking, it is because doctors believe that people who continue to drink won't benefit from a liver transplant.
I believe that is correct, but it is not because doctors believe people should be punished for drinking, it is because doctors believe that people who continue to drink won't benefit from a liver transplant.
Well, not even that they won't benefit (they will for the time that it is healthy before they damage it like their previous liver), just that their lifestyle will damage the organ and reduce its expected life. Which would mean in X years that person would need another liver.
Whereas if they gave it to the next person on the list who doesn't drink, that liver will likely last a much longer time and said person will need less transplants over their life (depending on how long each organ lasts).
If someone offers a live liver donation to the alcoholic, I don't think the doctors would refuse unless the donation would cause the donor serious health issues or their liver was already damaged in some way.
I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.
Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.
She is today using her position to whip Tory MPs to vote against releasing government papers on the Windrush scandal, because, of course, she is the scandal. So the position has its positives for her.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.
Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.
I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.
Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.
On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?
I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one
I always vote in local elections, but for me it's always been easy because by good lukc I have always happened to live a couple of minutes walk from my polling station.
I reckon this election will see a higher than normal turnout. I think Remain voting areas, such as most of London, are going to register a strong protest against the government.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.
Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.
I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.
Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.
On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?
I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one
But it does pile on pressure on a weak PM that has a tendency to move from one stepping stone disaster to the next largely self inflicted. No one will challenge May whilst Brexit is going on. They will let her hang herself metaphorically and then try and ride in as a saviour (which is why they are all practising the silly "I have a weak bladder and my underwear is sticking to my nether regions pose".
It is likely the local elections will be a mixed bag. Traditionally older, and hence more polarised, people vote in local elections. The Tories will be hoping to gain any loss in the UKIP vote which is likely to happen in certain areas. However given the current rumours they may just stay away. However bizarrely I also think the windrush saga in these areas may benefit the Tories. Labour I think will probably gain in areas where things like the Windrush issues, the growing disparity in wages etc is having a greater effect. Grenfell in London could also cause people to vote against the establishment. Not sure about LDs, they might gain if people go back to "I'm really a Tory/Labour supporter, am hacked off with what they are doing but won't vote for the other side". Tthis might effect Labour more than the Tories because of their respective stances on Wrexit. As such I expect a polarised vote.
Most of those Lords probably worked for the EU at one time, and I think there's a provision in their pensions that stops them criticising the EU, so they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Da Boss wrote: I reckon this is the powder, and a poor local election for the Tories (which looks fairly likely) will be the spark.
Given up guessing when May will go though. She's pretty tenacious if nothing else. And as I've said a fair few times now, her opponents are all cowards who'd prefer her to absorb the pain.
I think the Tories, like all incumbent governments, write off the local elections. Hell, nobody bothers to turn up to them anyway, expect political geeks like me.
Corbyn had a bad local election a few years ago. Never did him any harm.
On another note, are police and crime commissioners up for re-election tomorrow?
I'm sure reds8n will be there at 7am to cast his vote for one
But it does pile on pressure on a weak PM that has a tendency to move from one stepping stone disaster to the next largely self inflicted. No one will challenge May whilst Brexit is going on. They will let her hang herself metaphorically and then try and ride in as a saviour (which is why they are all practising the silly "I have a weak bladder and my underwear is sticking to my nether regions pose".
It is likely the local elections will be a mixed bag. Traditionally older, and hence more polarised, people vote in local elections. The Tories will be hoping to gain any loss in the UKIP vote which is likely to happen in certain areas. However given the current rumours they may just stay away. However bizarrely I also think the windrush saga in these areas may benefit the Tories. Labour I think will probably gain in areas where things like the Windrush issues, the growing disparity in wages etc is having a greater effect. Grenfell in London could also cause people to vote against the establishment. Not sure about LDs, they might gain if people go back to "I'm really a Tory/Labour supporter, am hacked off with what they are doing but won't vote for the other side". Tthis might effect Labour more than the Tories because of their respective stances on Wrexit. As such I expect a polarised vote.
I'll be surprised if more than two men and a dog turn out for these elections. You can't use these as a measure of the nation's pulse.
The EU think the customs plans are unworkable, and the Moggs of this world think they reduce Britain to vasall status.
It takes a special kind of talent to unite Brussels and Rees-Mogg.
These two things are not the EU and Rees-Mogg agreeing.
Rees-Mogg can only think the arrangement will reduce the UK to vassal status if he thinks it will actually work.
The EU doesn't think it will work.
It's still a mess though, and the bottom line is that May is dithering as usual.
A decision needs to be made, but it's been kicked down the road. Again!
Whatever May does, one side is guranteed to be annoyed, so she needs to come off that fence and make the decision, as she is paid to do, otherwise she should step down for somebody else.
May's primary objective is to prevent the Conservative Party from blowing up.
Her no.1 problem is that the contradictions of Brexit simply can't be resolved without appalling fallout on one side or another almost certainly leading to the Consertive Party blowing up.
May's method to resolve this dilemma is therefore to avoid any decisions which would force the issue to a crux, and hope that something turns up.
Most of those Lords probably worked for the EU at one time, and I think there's a provision in their pensions that stops them criticising the EU, so they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Do you have anything to back up that claim? It sounds like complete fertilizer to me, for each segment.
I don't believe that most Lords have worked for the EU.
I don't think there's a provision about not bashing the EU for people who work for them (how does Farage get round it?)
I don't believe they'd go through with Brexit if they didn't agree with it just to avoid "biting the hand that feeds them". They can't get sacked, so there's no threat there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: May's method to resolve this dilemma is therefore to avoid any decisions which would force the issue to a crux, and hope that something turns up.
At this point I think this is the plan. I'm struggling to believe that they can be so unintentionally incompetent. They can only be stalling until they find a way to get out of it with the party intact. The only way I can see them doing that is if they can fob the decisions over to the EU, Labour or the Lords.
Lord Kinnock for starters. Despite being a lifetime critic of the lords he happily accepted a peerage after his time as an EU commissioner. So of course he’s going to shill for the EU. I’m sure his pensions depend on it.
And once gain, the UK conducts foreign policy on the back of a beermat. This is horsegak, kamikaze. I do not understand the rational behind this.
We don't trade with Russia. We don't border with Russia. And we don't have any ex-colonial disputes with Russia.
The Cold War is over. Or am I wrong?
The rational behind this is Russian involvement in Ukraine and Syria. I am no Putin fan, the man is a tyrant, but Ukraine borders with Russia, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia.
Putin's involvement in these two nations makes perfect sense.
What territorial interest the UK has in Ukraine in beyond me. It's not a NATO ally, and we certainly don't have any EU links with them (putting Brexit aside here for a moment)
I cannot understand why we invite Russia's problems into London and stick our noses into nations that are not in our sphere of interest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: That is just your supposition. Do you have any actual evidence that;
1. Kinnock actually opposes the EU in secret.
2. Kinnock's pension depends on not criticising the EU.
Kinnock doesn't even need an EU pension. He's got an MP's pension and a £200 a day attendance allowance.
That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.
This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.
So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.
Herzlos wrote: That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.
This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.
So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.
That's still a 5th column in my book, 2% or not.
The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip
Herzlos wrote: That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.
This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.
Exactly. They're entitled to criticise the EU as much as they like, and their pension is safe.
There are plenty of instances of former commissioners criticising EU decisions and structure. Kroes for example has been extremely critical of the Apple ruling, and Durao Barroso didn't take very well criticism from his former colleagues from taking a cushy job at Goldman Sachs (the ethics document for commissioners was updated precisely because of him).
All the rules say is this:
After ceasing to hold office, former Members shall continue to be bound by their duty of integrity and discretion pursuant to Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. They shall continue to be bound by the duties of collegiality and discretion, as laid down in Article 5, with respect to the Commission's decisions and activities during their term of office.
Which for the most part means that they shouldn't be too overt in their lobbying efforts once they land that high-paying job at a major bank, pharma or big energy company.
But there isn't, and even if there was, at 2% they are swaying nothing,
The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip
Because they keep getting in the way of your beloved Brexit?
Fom my perspective, whilst I don't like how they are selected, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of stopping the government doing anything too stupid or damaging to individuals rights.
Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)
There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.
If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be.
Edit: Also, I always found it very rich to hear British people complaining about the democratic deficit in the EU when you have this gigantic unelected second house, an unelected head of state and a Prime Minister who is chosen by his/her party after only being voted in by people in his/her constituency by merit of being the leader of the biggest party in the Commons (ie. almost the same way Junker was selected).
Da Boss wrote: Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)
There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.
If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be.
This has been gone one for some time with the Tories. They previously changed how people were registered (effectively to rely on self registration) which was shown to vastly affect the younger generation as they are more mobile. They are then proposing to use only the registered voters as the basis for new electoral boundaries. All of a sudden a lot of city centralised residents suddenly disappear off the system when choosing boundaries and putting more weight on those rural areas where voter registration is higher (and also tends to be more Torycentric).
The number of cases of electoral fraud are actually tiny. Yet we have a quote saying a small percent of people got turned away. If we assume 2.5% then that equates to, across the country, 1 million people being denied a vote at a GE. It's staggering that they could introduce such a system when the number of fraud cases is in the hundreds.
Edit: Also, I always found it very rich to hear British people complaining about the democratic deficit in the EU when you have this gigantic unelected second house, an unelected head of state and a Prime Minister who is chosen by his/her party after only being voted in by people in his/her constituency by merit of being the leader of the biggest party in the Commons (ie. almost the same way Junker was selected).
You will find that. I've also heard people complaining that they might have to pay for Visa's in the future to go to Europe and they are losing their freedom to move around as they wish, whilst at the same time complaining that they don't want other people in the EU to have that freedom...
Da Boss wrote: Was the Voter ID thing made law with an Act of Parliament? If not is it not illegal to deny the franchise to voters? Are records being kept (which will obviously be made public) of how many people are turned away and exactly who they are so we can properly measure the impact? (If this is a trial, surely that is the point?)
There is a vanishingly tiny amount of electoral fraud in the UK. It seems obvious this policy is designed to disenfranchise the young and the poor, and therefore benefit the Tories.
If there is not a scandal over this, there bloody well should be...
I couldn't agree more. It's a blatant attempt to dissuade the poor and young from voting. Those least likely to have ID. Where is the evidence that election fraud has been committed on such a scale that this is seen to be necessary?
Herzlos wrote: That's fair enough. You weren't the one to claim that most Lords worked for the EU and were forced to support them for their pensions. But that was obvious nonsense from DINLT.
This article reckons that "over 20" Lords have worked for the EU in some capacity, thus might have some conflict related to pensions (which is about right given a £550k individual pension pot and a £10m total). Assuming they genuinely can't vote against the EU, which doesn't seem the case. It sounds like they just aren't allowed to slag off the EU using their position to add weight to it.
So we've got maybe 20 Lords out of 800 (or 754 depending on the source), which is 2% (or 2.6%) of the Lords with a conflict of interest. That's barely any.
That's still a 5th column in my book, 2% or not.
The Lords should have been chased out of London decades ago with a horse whip
What do you call the ERG then?
Almost the very definition of a shadowy, unaccountable and insidious organisation within attemoting to undermine and overthrow the government.
I’m sure many will claim it’s a Con victory having gained seats, but I can’t help seeing the huge losses for UKIP not going to the Tory’s as a big Tory loss. Lab and Lib have both made huge gains. Surely these huge UKIP losses against a background of claims we are looking at Brexit in name only from the right can only be taken as a sign of people questioning our leaving the EU?
I dunno. I think if Labour can't take more seats off of a clearly incompetent and scandal wracked conservative party who are damaging the country, they have a serious problem. And I say that as someone who has defended Corbyn here before.
And with one fell swoop, Sam Gyimah has saved academics and our universities' integrity. And to those who see the daily mail as the font of all evil, this is a report, not an opinion piece, so don't get your knickers in a twist clicking the link.
And with one fell swoop, Sam Gyimah has saved academics and our universities' integrity. And to those who see the daily mail as the font of all evil, this is a report, not an opinion piece, so don't get your knickers in a twist clicking the link.
There's really bigger problems at UK universities than students getting overexcited about speakers.
VC wages skyrocketing, tuition fees going through the rough, ongoing marketisation, casualisation of the academic workforce...
But sure, good that the minister is dealing with the important issues.
Da Boss wrote: There's really bigger problems at UK universities than students getting overexcited about speakers.
VC wages skyrocketing, tuition fees going through the rough, ongoing marketisation, casualisation of the academic workforce...
But sure, good that the minister is dealing with the important issues.
I think it really is an important issue. Why bother having universities if they don't facilitate debate and the sharing and development of ideas? They may as well be propaganda outlets otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: We'll see whether the daily mail feels the same way when a university hosts someone with extreme islamic views.
It's a report. Zero opinion in the article, if you'd bothered to read it. And of course I'd be fine with that personally, what's the point of free speech if it's not actually free?
A Town Called Malus wrote: We'll see whether the daily mail feels the same way when a university hosts someone with extreme islamic views.
It's a report. Zero opinion in the article, if you'd bothered to read it. And of course I'd be fine with that personally, what's the point of free speech if it's not actually free?
The Daily Mail doesn't do zero opinion reporting. That you think otherwise is worrying.
with that used in the Daily Mail article. Notice how the BBC doesn't call anyone a zealot? Nor declare a "Victory for Free Speech"?
The Daily Mail article also fails to point out that a parliamentary committee examining free speech in Universities found that there was no systematic or pervasive issue, but rather a small number of incidents being widely shared.
Extreme views need to be heard, so they can be be understood, deconstructed and publicly discredited. If you don't understand your enemy, how can you ever hope to defeat them?
OK, so there's the title, which isn't that much opinion, the government has taken the side of free speech, and reading through the article again, all I see is statements of events, not judgments.
And had I seen the BBC article first, as it does provide more information, I would have shared it. It just so happens I saw the daily mail one first.
Additionally, just because it is a small number of incidents, not pervasive, does not mean it is not a problem. Nor does it mean it should be allowed to continue. Mr Gyimah is entirely right to clear up the university rules regarding this in order to protect free speech.
Interesting that Brexit has such a large apparent effect on vote shares in local elections.
UKIP seem done and dusted!
I watched an interview with a lesser spotted Lib Dem on BBC Breakfast this morning, he was so happy and enthusiastic to begin with but Charlie and Naga ground that out of him by comparing this performance with vote numbers under Charles Kennedy! Must have thoroughly spoilt the poor blokes morning.
Da Boss wrote: I agree with you, I just think this is a manufactured outrage and there are far bigger problems in third level education in the UK.
The existence of other, bigger problems does not justify ignoring an issue. I disagree with this is a manufactured outrage, its a very serious issue. Though I will agree that the Tories have and will happily use it to distract from other issues. (as all Politicians do).
This isn't a Zero Sum Game. ALL these problems in Academia should be dealt with, including the attacks on Free Speech.
[Edited because I missed that you were responding directly to and agreeing with me]
Is the UKIP slump surprising to anyone? They were a one issue party. I'm amazed they've hung around as long as they have since they got the Brexit vote.
I'm not sure why people are hailing this as a defeat for "Brexiteers". As Creed says, UKIP was a one issue party that achieved its one issue and brought the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party to dominance. The Tory party is now for all intents and pruposes the Brexit party (not that they're in anyway 100% united on Brexit, but they're the closest thing we've got to a Brexit Party).
I was watching the BBC's election coverage. As always kudos to John Curtice
Anyway, Curtice aside, it was the usual collection of has beens and Oxbridge mafia types banging on Corbyn and May etc etc
And I though to myself that nothing has changed. Here they are sailing on blissfully as though Brexit never happened, as though the establishment never got the boot up the rear in 2016.
How anybody can claim defeat or victory on a 33% turnout is beyond me, and if I were a party leader getting 20% of that, I'd be ashamed. deeply ashamed, that nobody bothers with these things.
But here they were, as they do every election, trying to talk it up.
And as for engaging with the working classes, these people wouldn't know the working classes if a keg of bitter was dropped on them.
And the Tories? After 8 years of incompetence and ineptitude that would shame a banana republic, millions of people go out and vote for them?
I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
That said; local elections have poor turnouts and are usually about local issues so I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm not sure why people are hailing this as a defeat for "Brexiteers". As Creed says, UKIP was a one issue party that achieved its one issue and brought the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party to dominance. The Tory party is now for all intents and pruposes the Brexit party (not that they're in anyway 100% united on Brexit, but they're the closest thing we've got to a Brexit Party).
UKIP won, even if it killed them as a party.
Pretty much this. UKIP is redundant now that the country has newUKIP in place. I would suggest again that in some areas the Windrush fiasco probably benefited the Tory party unfortunately.
The results seem to indicate that, as predicted, the Country is still extremely divided. Anti-Wrexit votes went to Labour and LDs. Pro-Wrexit votes went (especially from UKIP) to Tories.
However the unfortunate thing that will happen is that this result will likely embolden the nut cases in newUKIP because their vote is becoming more reliant on the very pro-Wrexit side of the votes. They do have the advantage in the FPTP system in that there is no effective right wing party to strip them of votes now. In comparison the left and centre-left are split between multiple parties which gives the opportunity for newUKIP to take seats as these parties split the vote.
There are a couple of things that I am interested in. Firstly the actual voting numbers by party. FPTP can hide changes in voting intention and I'd like to see proportions (though noting it is not a full sample, so will have biases). I'd also like to see whether the areas with the ill concieved Voter ID application saw any shift one way or another (actual turnout isn't particualrly useful as we don't have a baseline figure for that area without the method in place). Apparently almost 4000 people were tunred away as part of the trial which is probably more than have prosecuted for voter fraud in the last 20 years.
On the other hand it really shows what the newUKIP party is like when if you get voted in then all previous transgressions are immediately forgiven..
Herzlos wrote: I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
That said; local elections have poor turnouts and are usually about local issues so I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
It predates UKIP. In the West Midlands back in the 1960/70s, one local anti-Labour, Tory campaign slogan was do you want X for a neighbour? Vote Labour, with X being a racist slur that rhymes with digger, which I won't mention here. But you can guess at it.
Then as I often mention, young Conservatives back in the 1980s, including John Bercow, had support for Apartheid South Africa, which the Tories have successfully managed to sweep under the carpet.
Another infamous example is Peter Tatchell and the disgusting bigotry he had to contend with back in the 1980s from a man who later revealed he was gay himself!
Herzlos wrote: I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
There is more to it than this because the UKIP losses have resulted in gains in the main for the Tories. They are down because of the loss of other seats that have swung to Labour/LDs especially in London. It's not like the UKIP supporters have suddenly decided to vote LD.
In some ways this is just a realignment of the local politics landscape to last years election results (i.e. the collapse of UKIP, a bit of growth for LDs and an increase for Labour).
Herzlos wrote: I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
That said; local elections have poor turnouts and are usually about local issues so I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
I don't think it is as straightforward as that.
The broad social profile of Leave voters matches the areas where UKIP and Leave were strong, for obvious reasons. Those areas are where UKIP has lost a lot of seats and the Tories have gained them. E.g. Basildon.
It's not difficult to infer from the above that most UKIP voters went back to the Tories.
If the Tory vote was level despite the returning Kippers, it reflects pro-EU Tories (of which there are many) deserting their party in favour of Remain and soft-Brexit alternatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: There's not much they can do to "hang around" when they're losing seats and political influence. Its not up to them, its up to the voters.
That is a very good point.
Both the general election last year, and these council elections, indicate that we are in a polarised situation and people are deserting fringe parties for traditional loyalty to the three main parties.
Hence UKIP dies as its former supporters return to the Tory fold.
Herzlos wrote: I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
That said; local elections have poor turnouts and are usually about local issues so I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
Not true, if you the read the BBC article from that crazy prof it states that most areas where leave and UKIP was strong swung to Conservative this time.
That balanced out loosing seats in Remainer heavy London councils.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I was watching the BBC's election coverage. As always kudos to John Curtice
Anyway, Curtice aside, it was the usual collection of has beens and Oxbridge mafia types banging on Corbyn and May etc etc
And I though to myself that nothing has changed. Here they are sailing on blissfully as though Brexit never happened, as though the establishment never got the boot up the rear in 2016.
How anybody can claim defeat or victory on a 33% turnout is beyond me, and if I were a party leader getting 20% of that, I'd be ashamed. deeply ashamed, that nobody bothers with these things.
But here they were, as they do every election, trying to talk it up.
And as for engaging with the working classes, these people wouldn't know the working classes if a keg of bitter was dropped on them.
And the Tories? After 8 years of incompetence and ineptitude that would shame a banana republic, millions of people go out and vote for them?
I will never understand this nation...
You do know that Brexit is 100% the "Establishment" controlled and wanted right ?
You are aware that Garage, Smug, Piffle and the rest would not piss on the brexit faithfull if you were on fire for fun maybe?
You are aware that they almost all stand to benefit financially or professionaly out of screwing the country and it's people?
I have to laugh any time a Brexiteer dribbles on about the establishment taking a hit, then I remember it's me and my family that are going to be screwed along with the "Will o th a piple" drones and I get pretty pissed off.
The Hilarity knows no bounds. Oakley just compared his party to the Black Death. Makes sense. Causes massive disaster, goes dormant, flares up again to cause another massive disaster and so on....
In other news, 50 Crocs seized at Heathrow! I guess we know what they were planning to do with any surviving UKIP politicians...
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: OK, so there's the title, which isn't that much opinion, the government has taken the side of free speech, and reading through the article again, all I see is statements of events, not judgments.
And had I seen the BBC article first, as it does provide more information, I would have shared it. It just so happens I saw the daily mail one first.
Additionally, just because it is a small number of incidents, not pervasive, does not mean it is not a problem. Nor does it mean it should be allowed to continue. Mr Gyimah is entirely right to clear up the university rules regarding this in order to protect free speech.
Herzlos wrote: I thought UKIP were making a big deal of hanging around to make sure that the government didn't cheat them on Brexit. With all of Mays defeats you'd think the brexiteers would want that more than ever. That said I doubt they made particularly good councils leaders.
However, you'd expect the UKIP votes to go back to Tory, but UKIP lost 96 councils and Tory gained 0. Those UKIP losses seem to have been scooped up by pretty much everyone BUT Tories.
That said; local elections have poor turnouts and are usually about local issues so I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
I'm glad UKIP are pretty much finished though; we shouldn't be validating that level of bigotry.
It predates UKIP. In the West Midlands back in the 1960/70s, one local anti-Labour, Tory campaign slogan was do you want X for a neighbour? Vote Labour, with X being a racist slur that rhymes with digger, which I won't mention here. But you can guess at it.
Then as I often mention, young Conservatives back in the 1980s, including John Bercow, had support for Apartheid South Africa, which the Tories have successfully managed to sweep under the carpet.
Another infamous example is Peter Tatchell and the disgusting bigotry he had to contend with back in the 1980s from a man who later revealed he was gay himself!
I used to vote Tory, but Section 28 brought in by the Thatcher government (which, among other things, made it basically illegal for teachers to tell their pupils that it okay to be gay), ensured that I will never vote Tory again as long as I live. It’s not that long ago that May was sending van round telling illegal immigrants to log home”. My partner, who is herself the daughter of immigrants (her parents came over from Jamaica in the early 60’s) said it immediately brought back memories of all the times, growing up as a black kid in Yorkshire, that she was told to go home.
Whatever they do, I refuse to believe that the Tories are not still full of the same racist, homophobic bigots they always were.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: OK, so there's the title, which isn't that much opinion, the government has taken the side of free speech, and reading through the article again, all I see is statements of events, not judgments.
And had I seen the BBC article first, as it does provide more information, I would have shared it. It just so happens I saw the daily mail one first.
Additionally, just because it is a small number of incidents, not pervasive, does not mean it is not a problem. Nor does it mean it should be allowed to continue. Mr Gyimah is entirely right to clear up the university rules regarding this in order to protect free speech.
Another factual non-opinion piece from your favoured news source for you to mull over.
Wow, nice assumption there. The only 'paper' I regularly read is the spectator, I read pretty much all the other papers only when I see them scrolling through the MSN page on bing or on Facebook. Show me where I said the daily mail as a paper was good, bad or really anything? I was talking about one article which to me seemed to be just a report. Of course they churn out a lot of drivel, but not everything they produce is intrinsically somehow trash.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: OK, so there's the title, which isn't that much opinion, the government has taken the side of free speech, and reading through the article again, all I see is statements of events, not judgments.
And had I seen the BBC article first, as it does provide more information, I would have shared it. It just so happens I saw the daily mail one first.
Additionally, just because it is a small number of incidents, not pervasive, does not mean it is not a problem. Nor does it mean it should be allowed to continue. Mr Gyimah is entirely right to clear up the university rules regarding this in order to protect free speech.
Another factual non-opinion piece from your favoured news source for you to mull over.
Wow, nice assumption there. The only 'paper' I regularly read is the spectator, I read pretty much all the other papers only when I see them scrolling through the MSN page on bing or on Facebook. Show me where I said the daily mail as a paper was good, bad or really anything? I was talking about one article which to me seemed to be just a report. Of course they churn out a lot of drivel, but not everything they produce is intrinsically somehow trash.
If you could tone down the smugness, that'd be appreciated. And screw it, you know what, yes, that article is unbiased on the mail's part, they're just reporting on the findings of a particular study. The only judgment in the entire thing is referring to it as 'controversial' which is fair when something claims almost half of people are less intelligent than the other half.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: If you could tone down the smugness, that'd be appreciated.
Don’t count on it mate. I made the mistake of sharing here how the political events of the last two years have effected my family, and he just used it to make a cheap (and incorrect) shot at me. Won’t be making that mistake again, I’d show you the post but Kilkrazy deleted that whole thread. I also reported the post in question but nothing was done about it. So if any mods are ever wondering why I’m always on your case about impartiality, that’s why.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: If you could tone down the smugness, that'd be appreciated.
Don’t count on it mate. I made the mistake of sharing here how the political events of the last two years have effected my family, and he just used it to make a cheap (and incorrect) shot at me. Won’t be making that mistake again, I’d show you the post but Kilkrazy deleted that whole thread. I also reported the post in question but nothing was done about it. So if any mods are ever wondering why I’m always on your case about impartiality, that’s why.
...you just said yourself that the thread was deleted.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: If you could tone down the smugness, that'd be appreciated.
Don’t count on it mate. I made the mistake of sharing here how the political events of the last two years have effected my family, and he just used it to make a cheap (and incorrect) shot at me. Won’t be making that mistake again, I’d show you the post but Kilkrazy deleted that whole thread. I also reported the post in question but nothing was done about it. So if any mods are ever wondering why I’m always on your case about impartiality, that’s why.
...you just said yourself that the thread was deleted.
The thread was deleted weeks after the fact. Use your head.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: If you could tone down the smugness, that'd be appreciated.
Don’t count on it mate. I made the mistake of sharing here how the political events of the last two years have effected my family, and he just used it to make a cheap (and incorrect) shot at me. Won’t be making that mistake again, I’d show you the post but Kilkrazy deleted that whole thread. I also reported the post in question but nothing was done about it. So if any mods are ever wondering why I’m always on your case about impartiality, that’s why.
I'd very much like to know what the you're talking about. I definitely don't remember taking "cheap shots" at you over your family. I apologise if you feel that I have. I have checked through my posts in the last politics thread that was locked due to racism which stretched back until 2016 and I don't see anything that comes close to that.
However, I won't apologise for attacking the right wing and the arguments of its supporters. If that takes the form of a little light banter and the linking of articles to discredit that line of political ideology then I'm entirely comfortable with that. It's just helpful that in the last link it was a right wing publication that was reporting some less than complimentary research about those who share conservative beliefs, which was nice.
A third member was replying to something I said. You came along and said, quote “don’t bother talking to FWC. He just ignores anyone who disagrees with him, including his own family”.
It was actually my brother, and indeed my father too, who had stopped talking to me, who had cut me off and uninvited me to family events, not the other way around as you so smugly suggested.
That was a painful time for me, and I really didn’t need your little bs remark rubbing salt in the wound. It was posted in the thread started by Ketara from a couple of years ago. The one Kilkrazy later deleted by mistake, which is presumably why I can’t find it.
It's true. I did accidentally delete the old thread by a slip of the mouse.
To get back to current events, there is a leaked memo from the Northern Ireland civil service, which says a good solution to the border problem would be to move the border to the Irish Sea.
This is exactly what the DUP doesn't want, but it's a pretty good practical solution. When people and goods transfer into planes and ships for the crossing, there is always a delay and an opportunity for doing customs checks. Plus, this kind of system is already in place at British ports.
I'm not exactly sure what the DUP has against this except for ideology.
The DUP are absolutely terrified at the moment and have gone into bunker mode. They had a pretty close shave with losing their majority in the North in the last Assembly elections, so they've detonated the Assembly and are now having defacto Direct Rule. They are hypocrites, being unwilling to serve in a government without a Unionist First Minister, and hating serving with Nationalists in any capacity.
The problem is, the demographics are against them and their Hard Brexit stance as well as their corruption, incompetence and relationships with terrorist groups are gradually driving moderate Unionists away from them while the number of Nationalist voters continues to rise. So they're really scared that they might face reunification in the next decade or so, and that's causing some pretty out there irrational behaviour, even for them.
They are being irrational, and unreasonable, but unfortunately at the moment the DUP hold a trump card. They can bring down the government. No one else is going to form a government with the Tory’s. If the DUP withdraw support they will have to either form a minority government (fat chance of them doing that when May can’t get agreement within her own party) or hold a general election, which would be devistating for everyone. The DUP are not going to agree to a sea boarder as they see it as the first Theo to reunification.
Lots of people can bring down the government. May also has to worry about the 60 hard core Brexiteers in her party, and the larger faction of soft Europhiles.
A third member was replying to something I said. You came along and said, quote “don’t bother talking to FWC. He just ignores anyone who disagrees with him, including his own family”....
Hang on, how can you quote me directly like that and put words in my mouth? Kilkrazy confirmed that he accidentally deleted a thread that is all, not that I said that exact phrase which I certainly don't remember saying. I remember saying something along the lines of its sad when people fall out with their families, but thats it.
I'm sure a mod would have pulled me up on it if that's the case because believe me they're not afraid of getting in touch with me and letting me know when I cross a line.
I think perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Either that or that link really touched a nerve.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The right really are rattled. Apparently even the potential of a Corby Govt in the future is the reason the EU is bargaining hard and not giving us what we want.
Definitely not that they've had 40 years of experience in extracting the best deals for their member states and are not above giving the tender areas a squeeze in order to do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ...I'm not exactly sure what the DUP has against this except for ideology.
It is entirely ideology. Many Unionists feel that moving the customs border is effectively one step closer to a united Ireland, which considering a customs border is the token door into a country or collection of countries it probably is. However it could be politically dampened by playing up the administrative functions of a customs check area rather than highlighting that fact.
It's a tricky sell, but personally I don't really see any other way around it. Talk of technological measures is just that and is not likely to produce anywhere near the seemless border that the ERG support.
Perhaps some way of checking goods on ships, but then some form of electronic passport control points at certain points along the land border, effectively separating out the roles? I don't know how that might work, but it may settle some of the issues. Still not really a great idea though.
'the right' /= the times
I'd say we're past peak corbyn. Six months ago those elections would have probably been a near clean sweep for Labour. Now I think (hope) many people have decided that actually he's not all that great, hence the poor turnout and the conservatives not really losing anything and labour not really gaining anything. If he were so popular Labour would have probably got more votes and a higher turnout.
I'm not sure that local council elections represent the political temperature of the country all that much. For a start consider that Labour councillors number more than a thousand more than the Tories, yet our country at a GE is split in a much different way.
Voting for your local council also has historically low turn out, especially amongst the supposed youthful core Labour supporters. I think these elections just show a return to the status quo locally now that UKIP is out of the picture.
Farage still manages to keep his seat on Question Time though, probably because he doesnt have to submit himself to the vote to get it.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: 'the right' /= the times
I'd say we're past peak corbyn. Six months ago those elections would have probably been a near clean sweep for Labour. Now I think (hope) many people have decided that actually he's not all that great, hence the poor turnout and the conservatives not really losing anything and labour not really gaining anything. If he were so popular Labour would have probably got more votes and a higher turnout.
It's always going to be more difficult to make large sweeping gains over and over. The political landscape is different now with the collapse of UKIP and a large fraction of this vote has moved to newUKIP because they are taking the line of "we don't like anyone that's not English" approach. I saw some analysis to suggest that if the votes transferred across to the GE then both Labour and Tories would be effectively neck and neck in seats which would imply Labour are still gaining. However transposing local election results is tricky as they can be influenced by local issues (e.g. Sheffield digging up trees) and traditionally the turn out is poor and more heavily favours Tory votes. It also doesn't include Scotland. If Tories lose here again (and I'm not sure they will do as well next time) then that would swing towards a left wing coalition.
LDs may also be recovering as well, which may hurt Tories in some more consistently remain, but wealthier areas.
Yeah, I didn't see it reported anywhere in the British media, maybe it's such a mainstream view it's not worthy of comment or something. The Irish Times reported it.
Heh heh heh. Looking at it from the outside, it just makes me realize how ignorant the pundits and politicians are about the world. All this guff about them being extremely well educated and all that blah blah is just nonsense.
Make intentionally revealing movie and TV series spoilers a criminal offence.
Films & TV are a staple of the average person’s enterainment. It is the storyteller’s prerogative as to when significant plot points are revealed to the audience. Intellectual property theft constitutes a criminal offence. But, just as intellectual property can be stolen, it can also be vandalised.
LONDON — The European Union fears Theresa May's government could collapse before Brexit negotiations reach a conclusion, a leading member of the European Parliament's Brexit steering group has told Business Insider.
Gabriele Zimmer told BI that Brussels believes May's "unstable" government may not survive until the end of Brexit talks in March 2019.
Asked whether the EU fears the UK government could fall, Zimmer, who has represented Germany as an MEP since 2004, said: "Yes, of course. We are looking at what's going on."
She cited the recent resignation of Amber Rudd as a sign of the government's fragility.
"Last week we had a meeting with members of the UK Home Office to discuss the procedure for registering EU citizens. One day later, we had the change the address of the secretary of state for internal affairs [Home Secretary] in our letter," she said, referring to Rudd being replaced by Sajid Javid.
what a time to be alive eh ?
It's almost like promising the impossible was a bad idea ?!
To be honest whilst I still ideologically agree with Brexit it's becoming ever clearer that in reality any attempt to leave without a united government with a large majority and highly competent ministers is going to be a massive failure. And we have none of those things.
I think the lack of planning beforehand was the greatest pitfall. It made the planning afterwards a total political football and free for all, and that made the process run on British political imperatives rather than reality.
I'm actually shocked that there was no plan - the Scottish had to have a very detailed white paper for people to pick holes in, but the Leave campaign had no proposed model for an exit. This is not standard practice for referenda. When making a constitutional change, propose legislation for the change has to be described.
Kilkrazy wrote: Lots of people can bring down the government. May also has to worry about the 60 hard core Brexiteers in her party, and the larger faction of soft Europhiles.
Whilst that’s true, they would have to rebel against the party, potentially risk loosing the whip and part expulsion (unlikely, but a risk). The DUP just have to say “we are not working with you. Buy!” All they have to do is act like petulant children, which they have history on.
Well, true. Places like Switzerland have had the practice. The procedure for the Brexit referendum was made up as we went along - no surprise that the results are the same.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Well, true. Places like Switzerland have had the practice. The procedure for the Brexit referendum was made up as we went along - no surprise that the results are the same.
That's because the referendum was only and solely meant as a political tool to silence the extreme nut cases in the Tory party. There was no plan because it was never meant to go ahead. It was part of a political game and it backfired spectacularly.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: To be honest whilst I still ideologically agree with Brexit it's becoming ever clearer that in reality any attempt to leave without a united government with a large majority and highly competent ministers is going to be a massive failure. And we have none of those things.
It was doomed the moment leave won regardless of who was at helm
That's the problem with populism; getting people riled up about a problem that doesn't exist and then offer all things to all men. It sounds great until you have to try and deliver on any of it.
I'd probably have been for Brexit if it came with any sort of considered plan.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to current events, there is a leaked memo from the Northern Ireland civil service, which says a good solution to the border problem would be to move the border to the Irish Sea.
It'd certainly make the Manx feel important again.
It’s just a shame May had to go hold a needless election and give power to the DUP. Otherwise she could have pressed on with the Irish Sea proposal. Showing my passport at the airport or docks is a price I’m willing to pay. They can’t use that stupid ‘no divergence from the rest of the uk’ excuse because as their stance on abortion and gay fights show, they can tolerate such a thing when it suits them.
The whole situation in Northern Ireland about abortion rights is utterly shameful. It’s an embarrassment upon the whole UK that we have fostered a situation to pander to these backward idiots instead of having rights and freedoms equal for all across our nation.
I don't think it's helpful to frame the argument in terms of "backwards idiots".
The purpose of devolved government is to give the regions a way to vary the law from the UK standard. If the right to abortion is a human right as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the people of NI (and Eire) will be able to take cases up to the ECHR, and thereby overturn local law.
If this is not possible, then I think people have to make and win the argument within their own constituency on reasonable grounds.
NI has had special provision long before devolution, they’ve always been able to live in the past. The high court have already said that their abortion laws are in conflict with the Human rights Act 1998 yet changes are painfully slow.
It is backward because it’s based in religion and the control of women’s bodies against their free choice, even in cases or rape and incest. It’s idiotic because it’s actually costing lives and causing a lot of grief to those caught up in not being able to get treatment the rest of the UK. Other than having to make a covert trip over to the mainland to get an abortion.
It’s a blot on the UK’s otherwise good human rights record. Hopefully the upcoming referendum will address some of these injustices.
The referendum has nothing to do with NI unfortunately, it's only for the Republic of Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Btw Kilkrazy, there have been cases brought from the RoI to the ECHR and they did win, but the Irish government was pretty slow in implementing it. The problem in Ireland is that back in our "Theocracy: Graet IDEA" phase we wrote the protection of the life of the unborn child into our constitution and in Ireland all constitutional changes must be ratified by a referendum.
In NI, it's the tendency to ignore NI and let it do it's own thing, which is the reason why there are problems in the first place. No one in Britain cared when they were running their sectarian, gerrymandered and discriminatory state until the bombs started going off.
May is disliked for being useless and a bit two-faced. Thatcher directly destroyed the industries and livelihoods of millions. Parts of the country have never recovered. These people celebrated when Thatcher died, that won’t happen for May. When she dies all this will largely have shaken out, she will have a poor legacy but she’s going to have to go a lot further to really get the sheer hate Thatcher gets.
As people know, the USA has pulled the plug on the Iran deal, so where does that leave the UK?
Britain has been a strong backer of the deal, but I'd bet my life savings on Britain sticking its tongue up the American rear and falling into line behind Washington...
Everybody know how I feel about the EU, but this is one of those very very very very rare occasions where I hope the UK sticks with the EU on this and ignore that kamikaze President in Washington...
All the signs are that Britain will continue to support the deal along with the rest of the EU.
Somewhat of a surprise to see Boris J heading off to the states to try and convince Trump to keep the deal, and possibly one of the few things he has done that I agree with (although not really a surprise that the appearance on Fox & Friends didn't help to sway him).
But yes will be interesting to see what happens if it does end up with a major military action against Iran, which you have to think is the directive of hawks in both the US and Israel (Bolton, Netenyahu etc.). My own feeling is that May's position within government is nothing like as strong as Blair's in the lead-up to the 2nd Gulf war, she doesn't have the 'cabal' of ministers around her and parliamentary majority enjoyed by Blair, and it's likely she will be on even shakier ground (if she is there at all) following the EU travails and how that ends up in two or three year's time.
Pacific wrote: All the signs are that Britain will continue to support the deal along with the rest of the EU.
Somewhat of a surprise to see Boris J heading off to the states to try and convince Trump to keep the deal, and possibly one of the few things he has done that I agree with (although not really a surprise that the appearance on Fox & Friends didn't help to sway him).
But yes will be interesting to see what happens if it does end up with a major military action against Iran, which you have to think is the directive of hawks in both the US and Israel (Bolton, Netenyahu etc.). My own feeling is that May's position within government is nothing like as strong as Blair's in the lead-up to the 2nd Gulf war, she doesn't have the 'cabal' of ministers around her and parliamentary majority enjoyed by Blair, and it's likely she will be on even shakier ground (if she is there at all) following the EU travails and how that ends up in two or three year's time.
Trump makes Johnson look like Albert Einstein, and as for major military action? I don't want to see any working-class British men and women pulling on a uniform and dying for that.
Or middle or upper class for that matter, either.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but Britain has to stick with the EU on this one...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I never thought I'd ever say this, but Britain has to stick with the EU on this one...
Love that EU when it stands between your ass and a warzone, don't ya?
I'm not permitted by law to tell you my thoughts on this as ol Donny Boy has invoked the Hatch act (except on his white house cronies) so I can't talk about Candidate Trump (since he started running for office again almost immediately after winning it) and his efforts to get a war going with Iran.
You guys heard of the argument over prosecutions of British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland? I come from a catholic nationalist background (though I myself am neither anymore) and I say that it’s grossly unfair to hound old soldiers whilst granting amnesty to the paramilitaries who did most of the damage. gak like this is why I despise Sinn Fein (among other things). They are the ones pushing for the prosecutions whilst at the same time making sure the Ra men get off scot free. It’s interesting that they say that when it comes to their own actions it was a ‘war’ and thus it was all conducted under the rules of war, making their murders “legit”, but for everyone else it was illegal terrorism. Can’t have it both ways. Me, I say draw a line in the sand, have a SA style truth and reconciliation commission and give amnesty to everyone so the truth can come out and we can move in from this gak.
Yes, I was listening to some news about that on Radio 4 last night.
It doesn't seem right to go after soldiers for stuff they are alleged to have done 30+ years ago at the supposedly lawful command of commissioned officers, while ignoring the "contributions" of the IRA and other paramilitary groups.
A lot of dirty stuff happened during the Troubles. It must be very difficult for people whose relatives were murdered or just disappeared to just fogive and forget.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Corbyn has lashed out and declared both prefferred customs plans useless.
Yea I was quite surprised about that, good on them though.
I wonder what the chances of it getting though the commons is. The only sure fire votes it will have are the Lib Dems and the Scottish Nationalists I think?
Hopefully Mrs may gives MPs a free vote on the matter.
TL/DR: If Airbus wins the Euro 200M contract to build the new Galileo satellite naviation system, all the work on the ground control will have to move away from Portsmouth to the EU.
Every thing added to the pile makes the whole job more difficult and leads us closer to the point of it all blowing up.
That's not a good thing.
Crashing out with no deal will hurt economically. Ignoring the majority vote in a referendum damages our democracy.
Brexit with customs union seems the most palatable arrangement on all sides atm.
Cameroni gave a free vote on the EU to avoid taking sides and damaging the party, May could do the same.
I'm thinking the cabinet will blow up first under the weight of the contradictions -- see Boris versus May right now.
This will probably cause the government to blow up, triggering a general election. If May grants a free vote, it may trigger a general election anyway.
Crashing out with no deal would be a catastrophe. The majority vote can be respected by extending the deadline for Brexit to allow further negotiations to be carried out to find a compromise.
Well, some good news from The Commons. The utter bollocks that was Leveson part 2 has been shot down in flames, and good riddance to it.
Anybody who believes in a free press should celebrate. The minute the press needs accreditation from the government to operate, is a slippery slope from which there is no going back.
A lot of naysayers will bang on about Murdoch and Dacre getting away Scott-free, but this had the potential to hurt small regional newspapers, investigative journalism, and also, to damage magazines like Private Eye.
If the UK Doesn't want it soldiers dragged into the dock for shooting civilians in cold blood and shooting unarmed men in the back...as a nationalist I'm okay with that. Fairs fair. BUT. On one condition. If they want their soldiers to avoid prosecution they must admit the situation was a war. If Britain continues to insist it wasn't a war, actions like Loughall were murder. I hate having to be a hypocrite on this issue: our boys were caught out, they died. They'd do the same if the circumstances were the other way around. But the shootings were carried out under civil law. They broke the rules, that they imposed on themselves out of a refusal to admit they were at war with the Irish Republican Army provisionals. Despite this being what they said when the IRA shot it's first soldier.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, some good news from The Commons. The utter bollocks that was Leveson part 2 has been shot down in flames, and good riddance to it.
Anybody who believes in a free press should celebrate. The minute the press needs accreditation from the government to operate, is a slippery slope from which there is no going back.
A lot of naysayers will bang on about Murdoch and Dacre getting away Scott-free, but this had the potential to hurt small regional newspapers, investigative journalism, and also, to damage magazines like Private Eye.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, some good news from The Commons. The utter bollocks that was Leveson part 2 has been shot down in flames, and good riddance to it.
Anybody who believes in a free press should celebrate. The minute the press needs accreditation from the government to operate, is a slippery slope from which there is no going back.
A lot of naysayers will bang on about Murdoch and Dacre getting away Scott-free, but this had the potential to hurt small regional newspapers, investigative journalism, and also, to damage magazines like Private Eye.
Shame on Ed Miliband for pushing this amendment.
My view on this is that the reasons behind the changes are sound, the implementation less so. It largely depends on who does the accreditation. IIRC that was likely to be farmed out to organisations owned or led by people that have a vested interest in the outcome. I would prefer to see an independent body that had more powers to, for example force papers to retract false statements at the same location (type font etc) as the original article. I also think that all media organisations pay to support this and where there are circumstances where, non-frivolous, legal action is requested to be taken then this is done by this organisation on the individuals behalf free or at a reduced fee depending on the means of the person requesting the action. If the media companies lose then larger fines should be levied as a disincentive. An element of the fine then goes to the individual and an element to the monitoring body.
There needs to be a balance between free press and just making **** up about people (or using underhand tactics) where that individual has little ability to take reasonable action because of the costs of losing.
Kilkrazy wrote: The majority vote can be respected by extending the deadline for Brexit to allow further negotiations to be carried out to find a compromise.
Doesn't that then cross into a new period of EU budgeting that the UK would have to be part of, further increasing the financial headache? I think the EU are pretty set on the end of 2020 to avoid that.
The first is that the EU's headache is losing the money from the UK, not the chance of getting more of it. The EU doesn't want the UK to leave, in other words.
The second point is that the 29th March deadline was set by the UK. The UK can change it without reference to the EU. There isn't a legal mechanism by which the EU can actually kick the UK out if we decide not to leave.
The third point is that if the UK leaves, the EU wants the closest possible relationship with minimum disruption of trade, and it makes sense to give more time to achieve that.
The fourth point is that everyone is winging it -- making stuff up as we go along, because there aren't any examples or rules for the process. The plus of this is that we aren't locked into a system and timetable.
Speaking of the EU, it's almost Eurovision o'clock.
No, I won't be watching. I never do.
But I am wondering if it's time we stopped pretending we actually take it seriously? No more sending Simon Cowell off to riffle through the bins of the local 'talent' school. No more has-been boy bands/pop groups being dusted off and carted on stage.
Let's do it badly properly. Send in Lawnmower Deth or The Toy Dolls - one of our surprisingly long lived, cult following, well loved Daft Bands. Just make some noise. Get the crowd going proper, then crash out gracefully with the Nil Point we were always gonna get since we voted Leave and pee'd off all of Europe.
But I am wondering if it's time we stopped pretending we actually take it seriously? No more sending Simon Cowell off to riffle through the bins of the local 'talent' school. No more has-been boy bands/pop groups being dusted off and carted on stage.
Let's do it badly properly. Send in Lawnmower Deth or The Toy Dolls - one of our surprisingly long lived, cult following, well loved Daft Bands. Just make some noise. Get the crowd going proper, then crash out gracefully with the Nil Point we were always gonna get since we voted Leave and pee'd off all of Europe.
Given what's been going on these past 2 years, we'll be bloody lucky to get nil points. That would be success for us
The first is that the EU's headache is losing the money from the UK, not the chance of getting more of it. The EU doesn't want the UK to leave, in other words.
The second point is that the 29th March deadline was set by the UK. The UK can change it without reference to the EU. There isn't a legal mechanism by which the EU can actually kick the UK out if we decide not to leave.
The third point is that if the UK leaves, the EU wants the closest possible relationship with minimum disruption of trade, and it makes sense to give more time to achieve that.
The fourth point is that everyone is winging it -- making stuff up as we go along, because there aren't any examples or rules for the process. The plus of this is that we aren't locked into a system and timetable.
With regards to your second point, numerous court cases are pending on all sorts of things concerning A50. It's obviously unchartered territory, but we may get some answers.
Why do we keep sending in acts that actually care about their positioning? Either hoping to launch a career or resurrect one?
Why can't we just send in a bunch of lads and lasses there to make their noise and have a good time? Those more than happy to faintly glow before blinking out, with the off-chance of being such outrageously good fun, they actually win the thing?
We are Great Britain. We've given the world not just bands like The Beatles, but entire genres of music. For a tiny island, our output of quality music and lasting bands is immense. Why are we then just pumping out stage school oiks for Eurovision?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, some good news from The Commons. The utter bollocks that was Leveson part 2 has been shot down in flames, and good riddance to it.
Anybody who believes in a free press should celebrate. The minute the press needs accreditation from the government to operate, is a slippery slope from which there is no going back.
A lot of naysayers will bang on about Murdoch and Dacre getting away Scott-free, but this had the potential to hurt small regional newspapers, investigative journalism, and also, to damage magazines like Private Eye.
Shame on Ed Miliband for pushing this amendment.
Seriously?
Yeah, seriously.
On a serious note, I don't want to defend Murdoch and Dacre, I despise them as much as you do, but regional newspapers, which make up a huge chunk of Britain's readership, were going to be in the firing line and potentially having to shelve investigative journalism in things like local government.
Nobody wants to see the Canterbury Chronicle or the Oxford Express, or whatever they're called, have to shelve an investigation into local government corruption simply because they couldn't afford to pay court fes, even if they won the bloody case!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do we keep sending in acts that actually care about their positioning? Either hoping to launch a career or resurrect one?
Why can't we just send in a bunch of lads and lasses there to make their noise and have a good time? Those more than happy to faintly glow before blinking out, with the off-chance of being such outrageously good fun, they actually win the thing?
We are Great Britain. We've given the world not just bands like The Beatles, but entire genres of music. For a tiny island, our output of quality music and lasting bands is immense. Why are we then just pumping out stage school oiks for Eurovision?
Because we don't give a flying feth about Eurovision. We haven't got anything to prove, unlike most European countries.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, some good news from The Commons. The utter bollocks that was Leveson part 2 has been shot down in flames, and good riddance to it.
Anybody who believes in a free press should celebrate. The minute the press needs accreditation from the government to operate, is a slippery slope from which there is no going back.
A lot of naysayers will bang on about Murdoch and Dacre getting away Scott-free, but this had the potential to hurt small regional newspapers, investigative journalism, and also, to damage magazines like Private Eye.
Shame on Ed Miliband for pushing this amendment.
My view on this is that the reasons behind the changes are sound, the implementation less so. It largely depends on who does the accreditation. IIRC that was likely to be farmed out to organisations owned or led by people that have a vested interest in the outcome. I would prefer to see an independent body that had more powers to, for example force papers to retract false statements at the same location (type font etc) as the original article. I also think that all media organisations pay to support this and where there are circumstances where, non-frivolous, legal action is requested to be taken then this is done by this organisation on the individuals behalf free or at a reduced fee depending on the means of the person requesting the action. If the media companies lose then larger fines should be levied as a disincentive. An element of the fine then goes to the individual and an element to the monitoring body.
There needs to be a balance between free press and just making **** up about people (or using underhand tactics) where that individual has little ability to take reasonable action because of the costs of losing.
Like you, I don't want to see innocent people dragged through the mill, and a tiny paragraph on page 23 or whatever is no way to apologise for mistakes, blunders and falsehoods. There does need to be a balance, but it needs to be better than the half-baked nonsense that was rightly booted out of the Commons yesterday.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do we keep sending in acts that actually care about their positioning? Either hoping to launch a career or resurrect one?
Why can't we just send in a bunch of lads and lasses there to make their noise and have a good time? Those more than happy to faintly glow before blinking out, with the off-chance of being such outrageously good fun, they actually win the thing?
We are Great Britain. We've given the world not just bands like The Beatles, but entire genres of music. For a tiny island, our output of quality music and lasting bands is immense. Why are we then just pumping out stage school oiks for Eurovision?
We haven't got anything to prove, unlike most European countries.
You just gave me a laughing fit on the plane. I needed that, much appreciated.
And I’m glad that Leveson 2 was defeated. All that deserved was a sack, a rope, a breeze block and the canal. Yes the press has been out of control at times but that was nothing but an opportunistic attempt to silence it by a cabal of rich shady donkey-caves. I’m surprised the commons did vote against it though, as I imagine they’re still smarting over the expenses scandal.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do we keep sending in acts that actually care about their positioning? Either hoping to launch a career or resurrect one?
Why can't we just send in a bunch of lads and lasses there to make their noise and have a good time? Those more than happy to faintly glow before blinking out, with the off-chance of being such outrageously good fun, they actually win the thing?
We are Great Britain. We've given the world not just bands like The Beatles, but entire genres of music. For a tiny island, our output of quality music and lasting bands is immense. Why are we then just pumping out stage school oiks for Eurovision?
We haven't got anything to prove, unlike most European countries.
You just gave me a laughing fit on the plane. I needed that, much appreciated.
To be clear, I'm talking about Music, not making a wider political point. Stop reading into this more than there actually is.
I'd even strike the "arguably" and make it an "indisputably". IIRC you're the second-biggest exporter of music in the world (after the US) and British culture is pervasive throughout the world.
Well I like Eurovision, so there. Watch it every year and even the semi finals; although it's been a long time since the UK entered a song I liked and I'm not fussed about winning.
Netherlands this year please! Everybody's got a little outlaw in 'em...
Pervasiveness of British music culture is part of why we have to field such crap - I don't think we're allowed to field anyone that'd be recognized and biased.
That said, I thought the general point was to be crap, and we're one of the few that takes it seriously.
I hosted a Eurovision party last year, too. Good laugh but I remember nothing about the actual contest.
This is a pretty clever idea. May's cabinet is fairly evenly split between Remain and Leave supporters (reflecting the democratic balance of the nation as a whole, in a way.)
She's split them into their respective teams, each leavened with someone from the opposite team. Then she's making each team work on the customs option it doesn't like.
This has several possibilities. One is that someone will come up with a workable plan (unfortunately, it will be a plan they think is workable but probably isn't in reality.)
More likely, both sides will rubbish the plans and everyone will realise we've got to do something else.
The last possibility is that there will be deadlock all around, allowing May to kick the can down the road a bit longer.
The Electoral Commission has determined that the Leave.EU campaign run by Arron Banks and Nigel Farage overspent its legal budget by 10% during the referendum campaign.
The EC has imposed the maximum fine it is allowed to, and has referred a top Leave.EU official to the police for possible criminal prosecution.
I still say the answer to the Irish question is to just stick the boarder in the Irish Sea. I wouldn’t mind having to flash the passport at the airport or ferry. And it’s ok for the individual countries of the uk to diverge on law because they already do. If only May had guessed this from the start instead of fething around and calling an election. Also, we should have started work on building the future port or ports for handling future trade by now. So much lost time.
Yep. You have not been well served by the Tories in this. I think a fairly painless brexit was possible at the start of the process, but it's been botched from the get-go.
I'd also be pretty calm about an Irish sea border. It makes sense because there is already infrastructure for checks at ports and airports so it would not cause as much disruption as trying to put checkpoints on the border. I know the Unionists don't like it, but their hand is played and they don't have as much leverage in the talks as RoI now.
I still say the answer to the Irish question is to just stick the boarder in the Irish Sea. I wouldn’t mind having to flash the passport at the airport or ferry. And it’s ok for the individual countries of the uk to diverge on law because they already do. If only May had guessed this from the start instead of fething around and calling an election. Also, we should have started work on building the future port or ports for handling future trade by now. So much lost time.
That's probably what you'd have got if May didn't call a GE and need to rely on the DUP to get a majority. It's by far the bet solution but the kingmakers don't like it.
Despite the majority of state schools crying out for more money she is allocating £50m to a tiny fraction of Grammar schools that predominantly benefit middle and high earners as shown in all the scientific reports. That's also despite the idea being widely panned at the last election.
Definitely hearing what the people want on this one. To be honest the most foul and noxious solids that come out of my ass have better political skills than Empress May.
Usual MO, wait for a bit after the election then try and sneak in all those unpopular polices when you hope everyone has forgotten about them/is too distracted by something else. I wouldn't be surprised to hear rumblings about a free vote on hunting with dogs again.
The worrying thing is that moar grammer and fayth schools is not an unpopular policy but that it is popular enough to get through with a minority government.
Kilkrazy wrote: The worrying thing is that moar grammer and fayth schools is not an unpopular policy but that it is popular enough to get through with a minority government.
Has it actually gone through parliament though or is it just May pushing her own personal agenda of making sure the wealthy stay in the top positions? A minority government can still push through brain dead ideas if there is no possibility of a vote against it (and the funding is probably being channelled from a large approved pot of money).
In other news. Even the UN is now saying we the UK government is making the environment for non-white, non-british citizens more difficult and potentially breaches international human rights laws. Well done May...bigotry and racism to the fore...
A £50M spending decision doesn't have to go through parliament. It's a tiny amount of money, worth about 0.5% of the whole education budget, according to Radio 4.
Faith schools should be getting dedicated funding allocated and the whole ‘free schools’ thing should be scrapped. It’s either used for middle class enclaves to take local money from the state schools keep out the oiks, or it’s used by those of somewhat dubious religious/political inclination to get their own school.
Free schools are not ‘free’ to the taxpayer, they’re a money sink that can’t justify themselves academically. They fail financially and through inspections more frequently, despite the political agenda to promote them.
Kilkrazy wrote: A £50M spending decision doesn't have to go through parliament. It's a tiny amount of money, worth about 0.5% of the whole education budget, according to Radio 4.
That's what I thought, but I was slightly confused by your statement saying it was popular enough getting through a minority government but that in this case such an issue would have no effect anyway?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do we keep sending in acts that actually care about their positioning? Either hoping to launch a career or resurrect one?
Why can't we just send in a bunch of lads and lasses there to make their noise and have a good time? Those more than happy to faintly glow before blinking out, with the off-chance of being such outrageously good fun, they actually win the thing?
We are Great Britain. We've given the world not just bands like The Beatles, but entire genres of music. For a tiny island, our output of quality music and lasting bands is immense. Why are we then just pumping out stage school oiks for Eurovision?
We haven't got anything to prove, unlike most European countries.
You just gave me a laughing fit on the plane. I needed that, much appreciated.
Kilkrazy wrote: A £50M spending decision doesn't have to go through parliament. It's a tiny amount of money, worth about 0.5% of the whole education budget, according to Radio 4.
That's what I thought, but I was slightly confused by your statement saying it was popular enough getting through a minority government but that in this case such an issue would have no effect anyway?
What I meant is that if the opposition wanted to put up any opposition to this, by tabling a debate on it, for example, the Tories plus DUP could push it through anyway. None of the Tory MPs will break ranks on this kind of middle-class pleasing issue.
Of course it would be fair to say that Corbo has bigger fish to fry, but part of Labour policy is building a "National Education Service" so he might have thought about it.
Apart from the money there are grave concerns about creation of more single-faith schools in a society where we are already worried about social inclusion and division.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In vaguely politics related news, I saw Mrs May going into my local dry cleaners in Henley this morning.
Despite the majority of state schools crying out for more money she is allocating £50m to a tiny fraction of Grammar schools that predominantly benefit middle and high earners as shown in all the scientific reports. That's also despite the idea being widely panned at the last election.
Definitely hearing what the people want on this one. To be honest the most foul and noxious solids that come out of my ass have better political skills than Empress May.
Okay out of curiosity what are the grammar schoolsakd why you are against them? I presume they aren't grammar schools as in linquistic term so what?
Despite the majority of state schools crying out for more money she is allocating £50m to a tiny fraction of Grammar schools that predominantly benefit middle and high earners as shown in all the scientific reports. That's also despite the idea being widely panned at the last election.
Definitely hearing what the people want on this one. To be honest the most foul and noxious solids that come out of my ass have better political skills than Empress May.
Okay out of curiosity what are the grammar schoolsakd why you are against them? I presume they aren't grammar schools as in linquistic term so what?
They require that primary school children sit an exam to determine their educational achievement thus far. If they are sufficiently academically inclined then they maybe selected to attend grammar school, whilst the rest attend the normal secondary education available in the area.
Which sort of sounds fine until you factor in that whilst it is intended to provide enhanced academic attainment and opportunity for working class children who may not otherwise get that opportunity, what happens in practice is that the areas surrounding grammar schools become highly desirable to middle class parents unable or unwilling to pay for private schooling, moving into catchment areas and spending their resources on preparing their offspring to ensure they get offered a place to the detriment of local working class children.
It also creates a system where late bloomers are ruled out of having this opportunity by dint of the fact that they have matured later, or may even be a whole year younger than other classmates.
It was a hated system in the past as many adults felt that they had failed at life when they had only just reached double digits. It's very divisive, but understandably it's a favoured policy amongst many conservatives as it appeals to their worldview.
I think the problem is not necessarily with the Grammar Schools, but with the lack of respect for vocational training in the UK. The UK is much more classist than other European countries and there is little respect for vocational pathways. My wife works as a software engineer, and some of her most senior experts come from a vocational pathway that does not involve going to university.
Wealthier parents coach their children and get them tutors even in primary schools. It’s possible to coach for IQ tests. This is why those going from privileged backgrounds have greater opportunity to get through the hoops for the best schools and universities. It’s not right that schools that specifically select for the privileged are taking funding from the same pot that all the other schools in a local authority, it widens the gap between those of different backgrounds.
Free schools are often set up by the worst sort of NIMBY snobby parents that want special treatment for their children and keeping undesirable ones away from them, but don’t want to pay private schooling fees, so they start a free school using local authority money. Setting up these new schools up bleeds money from others in the area. Then you get situations where a selective school becomes a middle class enclave while others in the area can’t afford reading books or to repair leaking classrooms.
Further, free schools don’t play by the same rules as other state schools when it comes to staff contracts. They’re the ones that make the greatest demands on staff, they don’t follow national pay scales, but senior staff have huge salaries, and the unions have very little presence. All these things suit conservatives down to the ground, staff worked harder for less with eroded employment rights.
All the worst horror stories I’ve heard in teaching come from free schools and large chain academies. Their staff turnover rates say it all. Be very wary of the agendas behind those setting up and enabling the funding of free schools and chain academies with respect to the health of our education system.
“Overall, 53% of the country supports the public having a vote on any final deal that the government agrees with the EU, compared to just 31% who oppose.”
Surely that’s an absolute mandate to have a public vote? The will of the public must be obeyed...
Okay out of curiosity what are the grammar schoolsakd why you are against them? I presume they aren't grammar schools as in linquistic term so what?
As people have already alluded to it is a process where children are selected on their ability and then directed to different schools. The ones that pass a test are sent to Grammar schools, the ones that don't are sent to non-Grammar schools.
This test is undertaken at 11. Which is the first failing of the system. Children develop at different rates both physically and mentally. If you look at a child's football game the good players are generally there because they are stronger/faster because of earlier growth spurts which gives them an intrinsic advantage. Most people would laugh you off the field if you said footballing ability at 11 implies world class ability when they are 21. The same should go for determining mental aptitude.
Prior to 11 you are much more susceptible to the support of your parents. Middle/upper classes tend to be able to provide better support to their children through better education materials and so forth. People on lower incomes with parents that might be working almost all working hours possible just to make ends meet will not be able to provide both the mental/social/material support to their children. Therefore children from less well off bakgrounds tend to do less well (and really before 11 a child is almost fully dependent on the parents). As such Grammer schools tend to benefit middle/upper clases vastly more than the poorest. May keeps talking about Meritocracy but that only works when you give everyone the same chance. Otherwise it is just an 'excuse' to keep those at the top in the top positions.
In the UK primary school allocation is heavily influenced by distance to the school. There is distinctive price increases on properties close to 'good' primary schools. As such generally only the middle/upper class can live in areas where very good schools exist. As such the children in these schools get a beneift and a better chance of getting into a Grammar school. Not only this but as most are effectively privately run academies those in wealthier areas can ask for parents to contribute more to activities which generates an educational benefit to the children. This then links into better performance and higher chances of getting into Grammars.
The Grammars will tend to attract better teachers, pay more and so forth. Hence once in a Grammar school this compounds the benefit. Those that has laread ybeen mentioned bloom late will have no opportunity to exploit those circumstances. A case in point would be Einstein - his talents were not recognised until mid/end teens. However in a UK proposed Grammar school system he would almsot certianly have been thrown on the bonfire.
So what Grammars end up doing is reinforcing a class based system. The top universities will end up prioritising students from Grammars. In effect a childs life choice will be very heavily dependent on *one* result when they were 11. It massively disadvantgaes thoses from poor backgrounds and hence also ethnic minorities.
Of course this is the Tory party and the cynic in me would suggest that they do not want a highly educated workforce. They want a small number of 'elites' running the country and businesses and maintaining the status quo whilst the workers stay as the workers and never have the knolwedge to know just how much they are being exploited.
All for the sake of hitting a made up immigration quota.
The UK government had been warned what they were doing was illegal on this before. I am both ashamed and embarrassed by the UK government actions at the moment.
Howard: I used to work in an Academy chain. There'll be a slew of corruption scandals in a couple of years and everyone will be shocked, shocked! That this could happen. Academies were a New Labour invention taken to extremes by the Cameronite Tories, and so the entire political and media establishment will have egg on their face over it but will pretend like nothing happened.
No hang on, it's the Foreign Office who would be in charge of these Balkan meetings.
Well, the Home Office doing Crystal Meth would explain a lot...
What's more interesting is their choice of drug. Meth is not that common here in the UK, compared to the more traditional fare like cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin.
What's more interesting is their choice of drug. Meth is not that common here in the UK, compared to the more traditional fare like cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin.
Maybe now that there's no trade, they have to turn to home made drugs?
TL/DR: People who have been human trafficked into the UK, forced into slavery and abused by their "owners", are being arrested by the police in order to deport them.
TL/DR: Well over 100,000 Londoners, technically foreign citizens despite having been born and brought up in the UK, are vulnerable to all sorts of aggro when they hit 18 if they can't find the wads of cash needed to get themselves naturalised.
One or two stories like this could be passed off as incompetence. When you have this many, it starts to become clear it is not due to incompetence but due to policy.
It clearly is due to policy. No-one can argue against that.
The Conservatives announced a policy of getting net immigration down to 100,000 in their manifesto for the 2010 election. The promise was repeated for the 2015 election and 2017 election manifestos.
One or two stories like this could be passed off as incompetence. When you have this many, it starts to become clear it is not due to incompetence but due to policy.
It also fits nicely with the "hostile" policy towards migrants. It'd be hard to argue it wasn't deliberate and systematic.
They set impossible goals and are going for the easy targets (those that are supposed to be here apart from a technicality [usually because of a government screw up], but are registered and not hiding, instead of the undocumented ones that require some effort to find).
So I guess you could argue it's incompetent in that the politicans made impossible claims and the home office staff are doing a terrible job of trying to satisfy the claims instead of telling the politicians to gak off and stop interfering with stuff they don't understand.
I wonder how many of them would have actually bothered to vote if they had the opportunity - seems a lot of the younger generation didn't bother the first time and then screamed that it was the old people's fault.
I think there is more to it than "didn't bother". It's also to do with the need to register to vote and students generally having more uprooted less settled lives, not being aware of what they need to do and so on. The oldies have the advantage of experience there. It's unfair to characterise all students as lazy bums (even though some are I'm sure). If we really wanted to solve this problem we would automatically register everyone when they turn 18.
I wonder how many of them would have actually bothered to vote if they had the opportunity - seems a lot of the younger generation didn't bother the first time and then screamed that it was the old people's fault.
Oldies are also less affected by any change of outcome following a hypothetical second referendum. They'll literally won't have to live with those consequences as long.
And I genuine do not mean that churlishly. Brexit was foisted upon us by older generations - and they've damned the younger end of things to live with that decision.
A year ago it looked like the result would be the same, but I think now it would be the opposite, due to demographics.
75% of under 24s voted Remain. There are more than 2% more 18-24 year olds now than two years ago.
Conversely over 60% of the 65+ age group voted leave, and their numbers will have declined by more than 2%.
This isn't a matter of the older you get, the more conservative you become. It's a sea change in public attitudes that began about 45 years ago. I mean all the 64 year olds who become 65 don't suddenly change their mind. There is a demographic bulge of pre-European people coming up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would like to add that I don't think the oldsters voted Leave because they thought "Ha ha!" let's feth up our childrens' and grandchildrens' future. They did it out of good intentions.
I wonder how many of them would have actually bothered to vote if they had the opportunity - seems a lot of the younger generation didn't bother the first time and then screamed that it was the old people's fault.
Hmm - that's very misleading as its actually a poll of
about 2000 people
not the UK population - it could be considered a good sample I guess depending on the breakdown of the sample.
If it is a good sample (and there is little to base this on) the same report says that 90% of over-65s voted, its not like voting is hard for most people now.....
The second one is more interesting and informative but the following should still be noted when reading:
It is always important to stress that these are only estimates, based on aggregating the data from our election polls and other surveys over the course of the campaign, which asked people how they intended to vote, and then weighting these figures to the final actual results and turnout at a regional level
Personally I see no reason that 16-17 year olds should not have the opportunity to vote.
Polling is always done on samples, and always has a degree of error. A well constructed sample of 1,000 people is generally considered to be accurate enough for modelling purposes.
However the basic readings of this study are clear, and generally agree with other studies on the same subject, including the actual vote results analysed ward by ward.
It's so much easier for a pensioner to vote than a student.
They have all day to do it, more likely to live near the polling station, more likely to have a car or bus pass, know what they are doing, already registered.
18-24's are more likely to: live further away, have uni and/or job to go to, less likely to have transport, less likely to have voted before. 26th May is during exam season so plenty will have had other things on their mind.
Herzlos wrote: It's so much easier for a pensioner to vote than a student.
They have all day to do it, more likely to live near the polling station, more likely to have a car or bus pass, know what they are doing, already registered.
18-24's are more likely to: live further away, have uni and/or job to go to, less likely to have transport, less likely to have voted before. 26th May is during exam season so plenty will have had other things on their mind.
Indeed. I seem to remember the timing of the referendum being highlighted as likely to result in lower turnout of young people compared to other times due to it being in the middle of exam season.
Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.
Oh dear.
Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.
Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race. Making claims of this being racist (as the right wing press has) shows either a stunning lack of self awareness or a deeply cynical attempt to shut down criticism by trying to make them look hypocritical.
Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.
Oh dear.
Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.
Yes, damn those racist bIgots.
However, I think if, like me, you're white and middle aged, I can use it in the same way that other races have taken ownership of their own pejoratives.
I'm quite comfortable with calling a fellow 40 something anglo-saxon a gammon faced gakker, if indeed he is one.
Me too. I’m not quite middle age (at least until next year), but I am about as white and middle class as they come. Personally I think It’s a clumsy insult that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it does paint a very vivid picture.
Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.
Oh dear.
Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.
Yes, damn those racist bIgots. However, I think if, like me, you're white and middle aged, I can use it in the same way that other races have taken ownership of their own pejoratives.
I'm quite comfortable with calling a fellow 40 something anglo-saxon a gammon faced gakker, if indeed he is one.
If you're OK with it, cool. More power to you.
But I would rather prefer that we apply a consistent and universal standard for hate speech. If its not OK to call black people by a derogatory term referencing their skin colour, then its not OK to call white people by a derogatory term referencing their skin colour. Either its racist, or its not. It doesn't magically stop being racist, just because the target is white people.
Steve steveson wrote: Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race.
Oh sorry, my mistake. I forgot that theres no such thing as racism against white people.
That’s not what I’m saying, and you know full well. Don’t go playing the “poor little white man” card either. Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.
Steve steveson wrote: Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race.
Oh sorry, my mistake. I forgot that theres no such thing as racism against white people.
That’s not what I’m saying, and you know full well. Don’t go playing the “poor little white man” card either. Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.
I'm not playing a "poor white man card", I'm calling you an unprincipled hypocrite whose definition of racism morphs whenever you feel its convenient to make derogatory remarks about people whose politics you disagree with.
If you disagree with someone's political views, fine. if you feel that someone is bigoted, fine. As long as you prove it.
But is it really necessary to start using labels referring to people's skin colour?
Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.
You made the comment without providing any context whatsoever, no link to a news article, no background information. I took your remark at face value, which is clearly a reference to people of a certain ethnicity.
And besides, when people of one ethnicity call other people of the same ethnicity by a derogatory remark, isn't that just internalized racism?
No, I went to this thing called google. It’s a brilliant invention. It’s a reference to the colour the face of an over weight person with high blood pressure goes when angry. It’s not about race. The insults are not needed. I’m guessing this has hit a little close to home?
“racism
ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”
If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.
I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.
I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?
I find it ironic that you guys are all of a sudden keen on free speech and being anti-political correctness. If I had made a derogatory remark referring to people with a brown skin colour, you'd all be frothing at the mouth to denounce me.
Your principles are inconsistent. That makes you hypocrites.
If society is to have strict standards policing speech, fine. But I expect it to be consistent.
If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.
I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.
I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?
It's such a minefield. Non-PC gone mad!!!!
One day you will accuse someone of racism and somebody will quote this post back at you.
The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
No, like pretty much all things baby boomer, they took the bits they wanted, then voted to deny the same to those that followed.
As for Gammons....
You can be a red faced middle aged white dude and not be a Gammon. See, a key component of the Gammon recipe is getting red faced about anyone thats not you, thanks to an overdose of Middle England Persecution Complex, through dint of reading Das Daily Heil and other gutter rags.
It requires a deep seated belief that it’s everyone else, and not you, that’s the reason you may not have succeeded as you wished in life. You must be quick to the point the finger, and show not on iota of self reflection.
Consider my Dad. I take after him, politically speaking. He’s a wee bit red in the face, and he’s 70, retired, and doing well for himself. But Daddykins isn’t regarded as a Gammon, because he’s not a bigoted moron that buys their opinions from Das Daily Heil.
To qualify as a Gammon, one must also be woefully ill informed, and ideally, believe you know better than experts in any given field, because your own opinion has been carefully crafted to alleviate oneself of all blame.
You also need demonstrate such bizarre behaviour as demanding an end to immigration, whilst being an ex-pat in Spain, frequenting Eastend themed pubs and eating nothing but Fish and Chips. For the full fat Gammon experience, one must do the immediately above whilst also criticising foreigners for ‘refusing to integrate’.
That is what it is to be Gammon. Not white. Not middle class. Not Male. Just a sad individual devoid of introspection, but full of narrow minded bigotry.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I find it ironic that you guys are all of a sudden keen on free speech and being anti-political correctness. If I had made a derogatory remark referring to people with a brown skin colour, you'd all be frothing at the mouth to denounce me.
Your principles are inconsistent. That makes you hypocrites.
If society is to have strict standards policing speech, fine. But I expect it to be consistent.
If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.
I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.
I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?
It's such a minefield. Non-PC gone mad!!!!
One day you will accuse someone of racism and somebody will quote this post back at you.
Oh no! Apparently I am now a racist! Where is the line anymore?
I best not out any racist lest they throw back in my face that I think someone being called a gammon or a snowflake gammon is not really a problem if used by me, a white middle aged man, against other white middle aged men with a passion for bigotry and shouting until they go pink in the face.
Oh, and don’t forget that despite decades of not very well closeted racism, you must, must get up out of your Pram, spit your dummy and throw your teddy the very instant anyone calls you out on your bigoted views, or gives you the merest hint of a taste of your own medicine.
If you don’t identify with the above, congratulations. You’re not a Gammon.
I rather doubt it. Its self evidently a reference to people with a pink complexion.
Ergo, its racist.
Or should I take this as a green flag for making derogatory remarks about people's skin colour now? Is racism to be tolerated now on Dakka Dakka?
I'm sure you can give it a try, but I wouldn't advise it. A mod will be along in a minute as there'll definitely be a few of you banging away at the report button, whining at the racism against poor old white middle aged men.
They just can't catch a break, especially now that snowflakes are saying mean things about them.
I’m not being racist against Gammons. Because I’m not singling out an entire race, or calling all middle aged white males Gammons.
Being racist would be calling anyone of a brown complexion a shortened form of Pakistani, regardless of where they’re actually from. Or referring to all black people by a word. Lumping them all in together for the crimes of a handful. Claiming all Terrorists are Muslim, and all Muslims are Terrorists. Racism is labouring under the misapprehension that Halal food somehow commends one’s soul to Allah. Or singling out the Halal slaughter process, whilst not kicking up a fuss about the Kosher slaughter process.
It’s criticising the contents of the Koran, whilst utterly ignoring the same evils in the Old Testament, and by extension, the Torah. And again, for bonus points, one must also claim that if it’s in a Holy Book, then all followers of that faith must therefore follow it slavishly. Whilst enjoy a Prawn Sandwich, dribbling the Thousand Island Sauce down your Cotton/Polyester shirt.
Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?
By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.
You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.
Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.
Another trait of the Gammon....homophobic tendencies. The mistaken belief that your religious views are utterly sacrosanct, and that gay marriage somehow undermines your own marriage.
Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?
By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.
You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.
Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.
It’s nothing to do with their skin colour or ethnicity. I despise them because they’re narrow minded, backwards bigots. I’ve got no time for that sort of thing, regardless who is spewing bile.
Normally, I’d just call them arseholes. But Gammon is such a perfect term for when they go that delightful shade.
Its the "white" part that I take issue with. Is it really necessary to use demeaning labels referring to people of a particular ethnicity that you disagree with? Is it not enough to just say "these people are bigots"?
By your logic, one could argue that its OK to refer to black gang members as "N****rs", but its OK because you're only using it to refer to particular people in that ethnic demographic; if you're a black person who is not a gang member then you'd be silly to take offence at it because its not referring to you.
You're still using a derogatory label that refers to their skin colour.
Your mental gymnastics on this are really quite impressive.
It’s nothing to do with their skin colour or ethnicity. I despise them because they’re narrow minded, backwards bigots. I’ve got no time for that sort of thing, regardless who is spewing bile.
Agreed. Do you know who else I don't have time for?
Hypocrites with inconsistent principles.
Normally, I’d just call them arseholes. But Gammon is such a perfect term for when they go that delightful shade.
Right. So making derogatory remarks about people's skin colour is OK, when you find it amusing?
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.
Right. He's a gakker. No arguments there.
Its still racist to make derogatory remarks about his skin colour.
I don't know about that. If you share his ethnicity, you cannot be racist against him yourself. It's like saying that a black man calling another black man the n word in any context makes him a racist.
Is he a racist for using that word? I don't know, genuinely not something I've ever had to deal with, or think about. Until some white men started getting touchy about being called out on being generally unpleasant, and going pink in the face whilst doing so.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you want a real-life, well known example of a gammon, then look at Alex Jones.
Right. He's a gakker. No arguments there.
Its still racist to make derogatory remarks about his skin colour.
I don't know about that. If you share his ethnicity, you cannot be racist against him yourself. It's like saying that a black man calling another black man the n word in any context makes him a racist.
Is he a racist for using that word? I don't know, genuinely not something I've ever had to deal with, or think about. Until some white men started getting touchy about being called out on being generally unpleasant, and going pink in the face whilst doing so.
As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.
See what you've done, you've made AlmightyWalrus agree with me!
Its a rare cause thats unites us two in agreement.
It's not racist. Its wordplay. It's a pun based on the old phrase of 'going red in the face' and 'losing one's rag' or 'losing ones cool' about something.
In any case, I have a compromise.
I've got a better name than gammon (though I do find it a hilarious term for those who get all 'red in the face' about stuff.). And one that is quite appropriate considering this is a wargaming forum.
Story time! Back in the dim distant times when 40k was still rogue trader, rick priestly and his mates were running a demo at home, and playtesting, and trying to iron out the bugs of there new game. Now, they played with a guy called 'Ron', who was apparently a decent enough chap, except when the dice were going against him, at which point he'd literally go all red in the face and soon erupt into a massive temper blowout (very 'gammon' if you ask me). After witnessing these legendary outbursts, Ron was soon nicknamed 'Angry Ron' and his 'red faced monster' was soon immortalised in the very lore of the game he was playtesting as 'Angron', a certain beloved red-hued, angry, belligerent primarch of the world eaters.
Instead of 'gammon' as a term for folks that get all red in the face about 'that sort of stuff', how about, at least here, we just call them 'Angrons', in homage of our beloved game.
I've got a better name than gammon (though I do find it a hilarious term). And one that is quite appropriate considering this is a wargaming forum.
Story time! Back in the dim distant times when 40k was still rogue trader, rick priestly and his mates were running a demo at home, and playtesting, and trying to iron out the bugs of there new game. Now, they played with a guy called 'Ron', who was apparently a decent enough chap, except when the dice were going against him, at which point he'd literally go all red in the face and soon erupt into a massive temper blowout (very 'gammon' if you ask me). After witnessing this, Ron was nicknamed 'Angry Ron' and his 'red faced monster' was soon immortalised in the very lore of the game he was playtesting as 'Angron', a certain beloved red-hued, angry, belligerent primarch of the world eaters.
Instead of 'gammon' as a term for folks that get all red in the face about 'that sort of stuff', how about, at least here, we just call them 'Angrons', in homage of our beloved game.
Can't resist: can we have a meme of Kharn 'the betrayer' shouting out some May's brexit U-turn phrases (or is that too close to the bone for satire?), or else instead of the famous 'KILL MAIM BURN', we get 'BREXIT BREXIT BREXIT!'
EDIT: I'm against brexit, but dammit, I think I'm on to something here!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.
It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.
It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire
And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.
It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.
It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.
Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?
Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.
Congratulations, YOU are a criminal. It doesn't matter that you were only referring to a narrow group of white people. It only matters that you used a term referencing skin colour.
I mean FFS. People called you a "libtard", so its OK for you to call them a "gammon"? Is that your argument? We shouldn't be calling anyone names. Libtard, gammon or otherwise. Its gutter politics, and a violation of Rule #1.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As someone who's not British, I have to agree with Shadow Captain on this. It's rather distasteful to poke fun at people because of the colour of their skin, and it's the pinkish colour being referenced by comparison to pork, not the political views behind the anger beind ridiculed.
It probably is distasteful, but the whole point of the term is that it's directed at people because of their unpleasant views and tendency to get all hot and bothered about snowflakes, the eu, sovereignty, things in the daily mail, political correctness gone mad, Brussels, fishing quotas, foreigners, the French, cyclists, Germans, students etc etc etc.
It just doesn't work if you're calling someone a gammon, and they're not getting all bent out of shape about at least one of those things. There is also added piquancy that it is other people finally calling them a very apt name after enduring being called a libtard (itself a pretty grim term), remoaner or snowflake which makes it so delicious. There is also an irony that some of the people so strident about free speech, get themselves so bent out of shape by a term which is so brilliantly descriptive of them. Some are even trying to ban it, or call it racism.
Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?
Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.
Congratulations, YOU are a criminal.
Oh noes!
Thank goodness I'm not in Scotland, or have released a YouTube video involving cold meats and unsavory political views.
But rest assured, I will definitely keep it in mind if I ever fancy sticking it to the man north of the border.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: ...I mean FFS. People called you a "libtard", so its OK for you to call them a "gammon"? Is that your argument? We shouldn't be calling anyone names. Libtard, gammon or otherwise. Its gutter politics, and a violation of Rule #1.
Well no one has called me a libtard, at least to my face but tbh I was using the names as an example. Besides, I've not called anyone on here a gammon, so I'm not sure rule #1 applies?
Besides, it's not my argument at all, I was just pointing out that there have been names thrown about, but it's only become an issue when a certain group of people get targeted. Because they just don't like being called names, but don't mind dishing names out.
Eventually it'll just become another over used phrase that will have had its day in the sun, and was used to annoy some people who'll probably go onto have a stroke anyway.
I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.
My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.
I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?
Hey, remember that Nazi Pug case where the Judge ruled that context does not matter?
Well guess what, YOUR context does not matter. That court case set the precedent that any use of a derogatory term is hate speech, regardless of the context.
Congratulations, YOU are a criminal. It doesn't matter that you were only referring to a narrow group of white people. It only matters that you used a term referencing skin colour.
That is not what the judge ruled, in fact he quite specifically addressed the full context of the offencee.
Also, he specifically directed that his judgement was not seeing a precedent.
The judgement is available online. It's not hard to find. Maybe go read it before you bring it up yet again.
Kilkrazy wrote: I feel this digression has gone on long enough.
I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.
My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.
I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?
My work involves Weddings - family relationships can be very complicated and a wedding can bring everything to a head.
She seems clever and confident, looks good - seems like good royal wife material
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire
And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off
To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.
It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.
No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire
And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off
To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.
It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.
No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.
That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.
Where are the fire and brimstone types making the case for the EU? Basing a strategy on the other side dying off is pretty wretched on any issue, never mind Brexit.
Never mind the Euro, what depresses me the most is the young people.
I'm hearing about 1 million students are signing a petition wanting back in
And I've seen many a young person wave a EU flag.
Historically, students have been some of the most radical agitators we have known, both Russian revolutions being a prime example. Resistance to the Nazis being another. The students in Bohemia in 1618 being my favourite.
And yet, here we are with young people backing a calcified protection racket, in exchange for a few baubles of free movement and 'human rights,' as though the EU was alone in creating them.
Is your dislike of the students because they don't agree with you? The younger generations like the EU so as their voice gets louder we're more likely to get back in. It's a given they'll be marching and petitioning to re-join the second we leave, because they don't want to leave.
That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.
Because it's not a case for being in the EU. It's just a statement of fact; If the younger generations didn't agree with the older generations on EU membership then attrition wouldn't make any difference.
We know the younger voters want to be in the EU; maybe they are wrong, or maybe they are more engaged with it. We know the older voters don't; maybe they are wrong, or are more detached from it. There's no indication that people will suddenly start disliking the EU when they turn 65 (the theory is that political stance is largely based on the political landscape as they grow up), so as the over 65's stop voting (because they are too infirm or dead) and the vote share is increasingly the younger ones, the pathetic margin for Leave will disappear. Using statistics alone it's already swung over the line because we were so close to it.
There are plenty of reasons todays youth want to be in the EU, and plenty of reasons the elderly don't, but I wasn't discussing that.
I'm just pointing out you're fighting a losing battle, and are doing nothing to convince anyone why we should leave.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire
And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off
To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.
It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.
No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.
That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.
Where are the fire and brimstone types making the case for the EU? Basing a strategy on the other side dying off is pretty wretched on any issue, never mind Brexit.
Never mind the Euro, what depresses me the most is the young people.
I'm hearing about 1 million students are signing a petition wanting back in
And I've seen many a young person wave a EU flag.
Historically, students have been some of the most radical agitators we have known, both Russian revolutions being a prime example. Resistance to the Nazis being another. The students in Bohemia in 1618 being my favourite.
And yet, here we are with young people backing a calcified protection racket, in exchange for a few baubles of free movement and 'human rights,' as though the EU was alone in creating them.
The young ain't what they used to be
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong here, you ask where the passion is and then immediately launch into a complaint about 1 million young people expressing their passionate belief in a European Britain.
The poor thing, it's horrible when your political ideology is definitively proven to be so much complete garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I feel this digression has gone on long enough.
I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.
My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.
I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?
I get the feeling that your wife is not a fan of Ms Markle?
LinkedIn hiring data, captured in our monthly UK Workforce Reports, shows that the UK has gone from being a country that gains talent from the EU to one that loses talent to it. The change is significant. Over the last year alone, migration to the UK from the EU has fallen 26 per cent, while more people are leaving the UK for the EU than were previously.
(...)
Is Britain becoming more global and less EU centric?
To see the real impact of Brexit on the UK talent market and economy, we therefore have to look beyond the EU migration figures. Are we seeing evidence of businesses sourcing these missing skills from elsewhere? So far, the answer is no.
Rather than an increase in the number of professionals moving to the UK from non-EU countries, net migration to the UK from the rest of the world is also dropping. In fact, it’s down 20 per cent over the last year, almost as significant a reduction as migration from the EU. The UK remains a net importer of talent from non-EU countries, because the number of professionals leaving for these countries is still lower than the number arriving from them. However, it is importing talent at a significantly lower rate.
Obviously this will take a while to reflect in real economic terms, but the early indicators are there.
Herzlos wrote: If the eurozone goes tits up. People have been predicting it's demise for decades. It's less likely to collapse than the UK is.
tneva82 wrote: By the time that happens UK is burned and buried centuries ago.
I’m going to save these quotes for latter use.
Please do. If the EU falls apart before the UK does, I'll send you a GW battalion box of your choosing.
The UK is about to make a mess of Northern Ireland, as well as it's entire economy. Scotland and to a smaller extent, Wales, are making noises about leaving. Scotland is considering doing a Catalonia and having a referendum anyway, since it's being shafted over repatriated EU powers. If NI gets a special customs deal, then Scotland, Wales and most of England will want one too.
The EU has... Some Visegrad countries making noises about not wanting to play ball, and a handful of minorish issues.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.
The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.
Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.
Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.
A few months ago, you accused me of having a Brexit strategy that was heavily reliant on Russian tanks rumbling into Western Europe, or something as equally as dire
And now you're saying your Remain plan is wait until the old folk die off
To be fair, I don't think anyone has ever accused you of having a Brexit strategy.
It's not a case of waiting for the old folk to die off, it's more acceptance of the fact that the demographics will change enough between elections to change the results as the only group to vote in the majority to leave are they ones least likely to vote next time due to age. It also corresponds with more of the youngsters (who tend to be more pro-EU) becoming old enough to vote.
No-one wants people to die, but it's a fact of life.
That may be, but it's still a pretty feeble case for being in the EU.
Where are the fire and brimstone types making the case for the EU? Basing a strategy on the other side dying off is pretty wretched on any issue, never mind Brexit.
Never mind the Euro, what depresses me the most is the young people.
I'm hearing about 1 million students are signing a petition wanting back in
And I've seen many a young person wave a EU flag.
Historically, students have been some of the most radical agitators we have known, both Russian revolutions being a prime example. Resistance to the Nazis being another. The students in Bohemia in 1618 being my favourite.
And yet, here we are with young people backing a calcified protection racket, in exchange for a few baubles of free movement and 'human rights,' as though the EU was alone in creating them.
The young ain't what they used to be
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong here, you ask where the passion is and then immediately launch into a complaint about 1 million young people expressing their passionate belief in a European Britain.
The language expressed by Remain supporting students is what annoys me the most. If they want to support and vote for, the EU, then that is their God given right, and I would always support that.
But a lot of them seem to complain that they are losing their 'European' identity.
Utter hogwash.
Europe, derived from Europa, her from Greek mythology, existed as a concept long before the EU, or even Britain, rolled into town, and it will still exist long after the EU is gone.
As I say, I think Brussels should get some grudging credit for creating the idea that the EU and Europe are one and the same. Never underestimate the subtle importance of language.
Do Norway and Switzerland feel any less European for not being EU members?
Brexit continues to be a bad, bad idea. We'll go under before Europe does.
Until they square the circle of fiscal union without political union, and until they re-balance Germany's huge export surplus with fiscal transfers like what the USA does to the poorer states,
the EU will have serious economic problems as a running sore for years to come...
Do Norway and Switzerland feel they are cutting themselves off from Europe or don't have any sort of cultural integration? They've both got free movement of people, for instance.
It's hard to feel part of Europe when we've spent 2 years (so far) trying to become less a part of the EU. Interaction with the EU will get harder, thus we're putting an artificial cultural barrier in place.
It'll be harder to travel here/there, to send stuff here/there, and if we diverge further it'll get worse.
Sure, we'll still technically be European, being that we're not moving away from the continent, but we're going to be less close to the EU, which lets face it is the bulk of the Europe we actually deal with - France, Spain & Germany. Will we have less Europeans in our country interacting with us on a daily basis?
Until they square the circle of fiscal union without political union, and until they re-balance Germany's huge export surplus with fiscal transfers like what the USA does to the poorer states,
Why do they need to do that?
the EU will have serious economic problems as a running sore for years to come...
Why the last 300 years? We've been at loggerheads with them on and off for the least 2500 at least.
But our objections to them in the last 70ish years has been pretty minor - us complaining about things and being stubborn. Even now most of our issues with Europe, from a political basis, are completely fictional or misdirected.
I don't get how it ties in with your point though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Banking firm I've never heard of blaming Brexit for a move to Dublin.
Leavers are preparing their Brexit betrayal narrative
They are not equipped for life as defenders of a flawed but liveable reality
So nostalgic and moleskin-trousered by stereotype, Britain’s Eurosceptic right is actually mesmerised by technology. In the referendum campaign, Leavers espoused the power of digital communication to collapse geographic distance, and make India as viable an export market as France.
Now, faced with the riddle of how to leave the customs union without compromising supply chains or peace along the Irish border, they bank on unspecified inventions to finesse the problem over time.
This vein of techno-optimism does not run through Brussels, where “ maximum facilitation ” has few supporters, or even London, where Theresa May, the prime minister, tries to sell colleagues on a simpler customs partnership with the EU. Such is the minutiae behind an intra-Conservative party war fought in increasingly public view.
The mystery is why, with a hard-ish Brexit so close, Leavers would choose to die in this particular ditch. The customs partnership would not prevent an independent British trade policy. Britain would have to collect tariffs on behalf of the EU, but this seems a small nuisance next to the prize of exit. And if the technology really does emerge, partnership can be swapped for max fac later on.
Yet Boris Johnson, whose survival as foreign secretary is a daily reproach to Mrs May’s judgment, calls her idea “crazy”. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP goes with “completely cretinous”. Ministers whom she has asked to war-game the policy will do so with clothes pegs on their noses and expressions of distaste.
There is something forced, almost thespian, about their complaints. After all, their dream is near. Why imperil it? Leavers did not just win the referendum, but the interpretation of the result, too. Britain is leaving the customs union and the single market, despite the closeness of the vote and the ambiguity of its meaning. We have lived through the gradual normalisation of a type of exit that was held to be “hard” in the days after the referendum.
Mrs May has been a gift to the Leavers. As a rookie prime minister, hemmed in by advisers who failed to last the course, it was she who drew the red lines that left little to negotiate with the EU. “Trust me,” she wrote in The Sunday Times last weekend, but they should trust her implicitly by now.
Why, then, this struggle among Leavers to take yes for an answer? Perhaps it is sincere, and they read into the difference between max fac and customs partnership a significance that is worth delaying an exit deal for. But with various pressures against them — time, the House of Lords’ enthusiasm for the single market — a passionate Leaver would surely compromise at this stage.
Which is why we must entertain a more cynical theory. A good number of Leavers do not want to be associated with the exit deal that Britain eventually strikes with the EU, whatever its content. To that end, they are inventing grievances. Disavowal of the agreement allows them to escape blame if economic life deteriorates after its implementation, or voters feel no compensating thrill of self-government. “If only we had left properly,” would serve as the Leavers’ defence against popular anger.
The betrayal narrative writes itself. A cabinet resignation or two would help it along. Mr Johnson’s behaviour is consistent with that of a man who wants to be fired. Having won the referendum as rebels, endorsement of the official deal would turn the Leavers into apologists for a new status quo overnight, with all its imperfections and disappointments. Not just MPs, but newspapers too, would have to explain away the non-materialisation of Shangri-La on British soil. Neither temperament nor experience equips them for life as pragmatic defenders of a flawed but liveable reality. They will do what they can to prevent the change in role.
And if their vexatious complaints prevent any deal being agreed, then, for some of them at least, so much the better. A certain kind of Leaver has always loathed the idea of exit talks, as though European permission were needed, and hates even more the prospect of entanglement in budget payments, regulatory agencies and the like.
If all this seems implausibly calculated, then remember what the alternative explanation is. You have to believe that people who have devoted their adult lives to the cause of EU exit would, on the brink of their dream’s orderly enactment, become immovable on the details of customs regimes that merited no mention before. I do not believe it. Even their language (“crazy”, “cretinous”) suggests the histrionics of a ham actor. Leavers demand everything from a Brexit deal except their names on the paper.
Spoiler:
--“It is crucial to the Leave cause that it resist the temptation to set out a plan... It is a campaign in a referendum, not a party bidding for office.” Charles Moore 24.4.16.
... some actual fething details or thought seems good now eh ?
did people Hanann's recent " it's not my fault it's going badly" whine
Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.
Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.
Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.
"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.
"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."
He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."
In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.
Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.
“America will not be cheated any longer, and especially will not be cheated by foreign countries,” Mr Trump said.
“In some cases, medicine that costs a few dollars in a foreign country costs hundreds of dollars in America for the same pill, with the same ingredients, in the same package, made in the same plant. That is unacceptable.
“It's unfair. It's ridiculous. It's not going to happen any longer. It's time to end the global freeloading once and for all.”
The pharmaceutical companies in the US are among the biggest corporate political donors and Democrats accused the US president of looking after the industry rather than patients.
Lowering drug prices was one of Donald Trump's key campaign promises and he hopes to achieve this by making other countries pay more.
"I think this applies to all advanced countries, including the UK," said Paul Ginsburg, professor of health policy at the University of Southern California.
“This effort to change other nations' health policies will be driven by the US Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer when he is negotiating deals to avoid application of US tariffs or, in the case of the UK, a bilateral trade deal post-Brexit,” said Brandon Barford, a partner at Washington-based Beacon Policy Advisors.
“The second goal is that, for the UK in particular, trade negotiations will likely occur in the run-up to the US Presidential election in November 2020.
“The President and his team want to be able to use the NHS and NICE as a foil for his plan that reduces costs for consumers at the point of sale, but without rationing and access restrictions for which the UK system is infamous in the US, particularly amongst conservative media.”
Britain’s lower drug prices date back to an agreement reached between the industry and the NHS in 1957, which was designed to “achieve a financial balance in the interests of patients, the National Health Service, taxpayers, and the pharmaceutical industry."
While prices in the UK are controlled, in the US they are left to the market and the differences can be dramatic.
For example, Americans paid an average of £1,964 ($2,669) for Humira, an injectable drug used to treat an array of autoimmune diseases including ulcerative colitis. The cost for a British patient is £1,003 ($1,362).
According to the latest figures the NHS spent £15.4 billion on medicines in 2016-17; only salaries cost the health service more.
In the UK there was some debate over whether the US could impose higher drug prices on the UK.
“How much the UK spends on healthcare and on medicines is a matter for the UK government and it is not clear to us how the US or any other government would influence this,” said Richard Torbett of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.
“The way medicines' prices are set in the UK is governed by a voluntary agreement called the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, which is negotiated between the global industry and the UK government.”
Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust, an independent health think tank, disputed that British patients were freeloading at the expense of their American counterparts.
“There is no reason to suppose that more expensive prices for drugs in Europe would translate into cheaper prices in the US.
“USA healthcare prices are generally higher than in Europe and the absence of the sort of large-scale negotiation by the US government does not help.
“This is more likely to be the cause of high drugs pricing, rather than one side of the Atlantic subsidising the other. "
Lower food standards and higher drug prices, Brexit keeps on giving !
Herzlos wrote: Why the last 300 years? We've been at loggerheads with them on and off for the least 2500 at least.
Wait, what? Britain wasn't a unified entity for the vast majority of that, and loads of kingdoms proto-states stretched across the channel (and Irish Sea).
In other news, have we seen the video of BoJo actually running from the chamber to avoid the Urgent Question on Gaza? Tip top shamefulness.
The poor thing, it's horrible when your political ideology is definitively proven to be so much complete garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I feel this digression has gone on long enough.
I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.
My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.
I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?
I get the feeling that your wife is not a fan of Ms Markle?
She wants to put a bet on that the marriage will be over in 10 years max. I've told her to get down to Ladbrokes and punt £10 on it. IDK what odds she can get.
The poor thing, it's horrible when your political ideology is definitively proven to be so much complete garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I feel this digression has gone on long enough.
I would prefer to get back to the important topic of whether Meghan Markle is a total bitch because she didn't invite her father to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because she did invite him to her wedding or whether she is a total bitch because he isn't coming now anyway.
My wife holds all three views simultaneously, and also thinks that because her father is a total prick, which apparently is hereditary according to my wife, the case is proved.
I do not subscribe to the same process of thought. This is causing domestic disharmony. What can I do?
I get the feeling that your wife is not a fan of Ms Markle?
She wants to put a bet on that the marriage will be over in 10 years max. I've told her to get down to Ladbrokes and punt £10 on it. IDK what odds she can get.
Has she tried sharpening a guillotine?
*Not that I would wish harm on anyone mind, but down with the royalty and etc.
Herzlos wrote: Why the last 300 years? We've been at loggerheads with them on and off for the least 2500 at least.
Wait, what? Britain wasn't a unified entity for the vast majority of that, and loads of kingdoms proto-states stretched across the channel (and Irish Sea).
In other news, have we seen the video of BoJo actually running from the chamber to avoid the Urgent Question on Gaza? Tip top shamefulness.
Herzlos wrote: Why the last 300 years? We've been at loggerheads with them on and off for the least 2500 at least.
Wait, what? Britain wasn't a unified entity for the vast majority of that, and loads of kingdoms proto-states stretched across the channel (and Irish Sea).
In other news, have we seen the video of BoJo actually running from the chamber to avoid the Urgent Question on Gaza? Tip top shamefulness.
Well we've now had provisional numbers for the Windrush folk who've been wrongly deported/forced to leave the UK
(evenly split between those who've done nothing wrong and those who've committed crimes bad enough to trigger removal although technically since they were actually full british citizens they should have be immune to removal for any reason)
goodness knows how many will turn out to have been illegally detained as the removal numbers are much higher than the 1 or 2 initially posited
Herzlos wrote: Why the last 300 years? We've been at loggerheads with them on and off for the least 2500 at least.
Wait, what? Britain wasn't a unified entity for the vast majority of that, and loads of kingdoms proto-states stretched across the channel (and Irish Sea).
In other news, have we seen the video of BoJo actually running from the chamber to avoid the Urgent Question on Gaza? Tip top shamefulness.
What the hell? A member of the shadow cabinet has an urgent question for the government in parliament and the minister is allowed to literally run away from it? Its not even a difficult question. All he had to do was make noises about wanting peace and a need for talking and not fighting.
Bozza is a lightweight, a dodgy chancer who's main priority is himself.
He's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is. He's just superficial and glib. He's made a pig's ear of Foreign Secretary. He's a traitor to cabinet government and collective responsibility.
I'm pretty sure he's trying to get fired, so he can wash his hands of Brexit. That and he's a total rat. Now it's become acceptible for ministers to run away before questions (Hunt earlier in the week) I think we'll see a lot more of it.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Well we've now had provisional numbers for the Windrush folk who've been wrongly deported/forced to leave the UK
(evenly split between those who've done nothing wrong and those who've committed crimes bad enough to trigger removal although technically since they were actually full british citizens they should have be immune to removal for any reason)
goodness knows how many will turn out to have been illegally detained as the removal numbers are much higher than the 1 or 2 initially posited
Has anyone proposed or talked about bringing them back to the UK?
Yes. And it was Scotland's will to remain part of the EU....same with Northern Ireland.
Seriously. It's time for a second referendum. The result was too close. There are too many divides, and they're only widening. The populace are now better informed about the actual impact of Brexit, both short and long term.
Scottish Independence would really make it hard for Brexit; May would lose the ability to use our fish/ing waters or whisky as bargaining chips, and having Scotland in the EU would cause all sorts of other issues. It'd take a few days to open up a ferry route from Edinburgh <-> Holland, London bankers could move to Edinburgh to stay in the single market for financial access (same timezone, 90 minute flight or ~4 hour train), another land border with the EU to deal with. NI, Wales, Cornwall, London & The North wanting similar freedom.
Politically they'd get a battering trying to deal with 2 sets of negotiations at once (Scotland wants to be out of the UK before the UK is out of the EU, so they don't need to waste any time on the outside), plus they'd need to be making 2 contradictory arguments at the same time - any argument for why Scotland should be in the UK weakens Brexit, and any argument why Brexit is good strengthens Scottish Independence.
On the flip side, losing Scotland would give the Tories a majority in Parliament (I think, I haven't run the numbers).
I'd almost feel sorry for her, taking up a poison chalice with an utterly impossible position, if it wasn't for the fact she's a malicious, self serving cretin.
So we stay in the eu, then what? What about all the issues surrounding it? The open boarders, the waste, the lack of accountability? What are we supposed to do then? Business would carry on as before and our complaints would be fobbed off because our bluff will have been completely called.
