Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A sad state of affairs, isn't it, when practically all of our leading pols are either seemingly incompetent or idealogically questionable?

I'm not a fan of blaming the politicians alone for this eventuality, but didn't they push themselves forwards for the job?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A sad state of affairs, isn't it, when practically all of our leading pols are either seemingly incompetent or idealogically questionable?

I think May was desperate to get a fresh cabinet, and thought that with his prior disgrace and his role being only one of three involved in foreign trade policy, she'd be able to control Fox. He has a reasonable pedigree after all:-

After holding several ministerial roles under John Major, Fox served as Constitutional Affairs Spokesman from 1998 to 1999, Shadow Health Secretary from 1999 to 2003, Chair of the Conservative Party from 2003 to 2005, Shadow Foreign Secretary in 2005 and Shadow Defence Secretary from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, he was appointed Defence Secretary by Prime Minister David Cameron.

If he could have been rehabilitated, he would have made a good minister. Whilst he's money grubbing to the extreme (see the expenses and Werrity scandals), he knows how to run a department, and has some talent that could be used for the good of the country. Sadly, he's always been over-ambitious, he ran as leader against Davis and Cameron back in 2005, again this time around, and publicly quarrelled with Cameron over the aid budget and defence cuts. Fox has always seen himself as a Prime Minister in waiting. He's an arrogant man who thinks he knows better than everyone, but isn't half as good at the political game as he thinks he is.

With his latest shennanigans, I think May will simply be jotting down the details whilst passing him the rope to draw tight around his neck.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A sad state of affairs, isn't it, when practically all of our leading pols are either seemingly incompetent or idealogically questionable?

I think May will simply be jotting down the details whilst passing him the rope to draw tight around his neck.

Can we find some more rope. And hang the lot of them.

Labour are using all the rope at the moment to hang themselves out to dry. Can you wait until he end of the month?

I hope they are helping British manufacturing and using British rope.

It became clear to me this week that the political system is broken in this country, and the government are fine with this.

Cameron quit because he was a "distraction" to the party. Despite the fact that the people who voted for him are happy with him and his issue was not with serving his constituency.

I heard on the radio this morning someone complaining about momentum causing problems for the Labour party. He was saying that when he was out campaigning they are not interested in winning an election, but about "getting the person they want in the leadership of the party".

It is clear that they politicians have completely lost sight of the fact that they are their to represent the people who elected them and to work for their constituency. It is clear that they put party first and election of the party above all else, even if that means doing things against the interests, ideals and wants of the members of the party or the voters in their constituency.

 Ketara wrote:

I think Thatcher was desperate to get a fresh cabinet, and thought that with his prior disgrace and his role being only one of three involved in foreign trade policy, she'd be able to control Fox. .

...

wait .. did I miss an announcement ?



this 80s revival really is gathering pace.

... all those Zombie Reagan jokes .... hmmm ....

I've been doing a lot of thinking about article 50 (about 5 minutes ) and here's why I think it will be invoked sometime soon - at least by spring.

1) The Tory Euro - Skeptics are back! You would think that winning the referendum would sate them once and for all, but this new 'hard' BREXIT group being formed, is a shot across the bows, and one that May would do well to heed. First John Major, then Cameron, possibly Theresa May?

2) Council elections next year in England. The Tories are not going to go into an election with article 50 not invoked. There would be a mutiny in the shires.

3) The European Parliament elections are in 2019. If we haven't BREXITED by then, the UK faces the farcical situation of having to vote for MEPS for an institution that we voted to exit from!

Put your money on 2019 being the year of the new dawn.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A sad state of affairs, isn't it, when practically all of our leading pols are either seemingly incompetent or idealogically questionable?

I think Thatcher was desperate to get a fresh cabinet, and thought that with his prior disgrace and his role being only one of three involved in foreign trade policy, she'd be able to control Fox. He has a reasonable pedigree after all:-

After holding several ministerial roles under John Major, Fox served as Constitutional Affairs Spokesman from 1998 to 1999, Shadow Health Secretary from 1999 to 2003, Chair of the Conservative Party from 2003 to 2005, Shadow Foreign Secretary in 2005 and Shadow Defence Secretary from 2005 to 2010. In 2010, he was appointed Defence Secretary by Prime Minister David Cameron.

If he could have been rehabilitated, he would have made a good minister. Whilst he's money grubbing to the extreme (see the expenses and Werrity scandals), he knows how to run a department, and has some talent that could be used for the good of the country. Sadly, he's always been over-ambitious, he ran as leader against Davis and Cameron back in 2005, again this time around, and publicly quarrelled with Cameron over the aid budget and defence cuts. Fox has always seen himself as a Prime Minister in waiting. He's an arrogant man who thinks he knows better than everyone, but isn't half as good at the political game as he thinks he is.

With his latest shennanigans, I think May will simply be jotting down the details whilst passing him the rope to draw tight around his neck.

As I said earlier, it's the one thing, the only thing, that unites all the BREXITEERS and Remainers on this thread - Fox deserves the boot.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I've been doing a lot of thinking about article 50 (about 5 minutes ) and here's why I think it will be invoked sometime soon - at least by spring.

Issuing article 50 too early could end real problems though. The government hasn't even started open consultations with the variety of organisations out there and if you rush the process the real risk is that you miss something major until day 700 which then gives you no time to review the best options. As an example *only* take the situation where hidden deep in the gas supply contracts there is a clause that states the contracts are only valid in an 'open market' because there is little gas storage capacity in the UK (relative to the need) and most gets imported in the winter. Suppose it gets missed until day 700 when someone works out that the impacts would be to increase prices four-fold (as an example) during the winter months. This then only leaves a few weeks to go back and try and negotiate something; however the other party will know they have you by the 'short and curlies'. Either you let prices increase which is going to harshly impact the poorest and oldest or you go back to the table, but with such a short timeframe it will be our government under pressure and they will probably have to sacrifice some significant elements if they want to avoid the rise. The same goes for say local authorities - suppose they have a waste treatment contract that sends waste abroad as refuse derived fuel; if the Authority are tied into a long term contract then there is a real risk that the company comes back and demands compensation for the extra costs having to go 'across a border' will have on them. It's called a change in law clause and it is the one thing you always want to avoid because at that point you are tied into a contract and your negotiating position is extremely limited because you have no fall back position or comparison. There are perhaps 100,000s to millions of contracts throughout the country and only the few most recent ones are going to have anything in the way of an exemption from a change in law due to leaving the EU. That means every contractor will be looking over their contract to see how much extra money they can get out o the contract because of the changes.

Simply the government needs to know what the implications are before they go ahead so they can decide which areas they want to sacrifice and which they don't. It's so solely focussed on free trade and immigration that if they are not careful really significant issues are going to be missed completely.

1) The Tory Euro - Skeptics are back! You would think that winning the referendum would sate them once and for all, but this new 'hard' BREXIT group being formed, is a shot across the bows, and one that May would do well to heed. First John Major, then Cameron, possibly Theresa May?

They won't try anything yet; both because it will start a civil war in the Tory party (which is why the lady in charge of DEFRA pulled out) because the party is generally pro-EU but the people that decide the leader will be very anti-EU so you could have (again) a leader that isn't supported by the majority of the MPs. Secondly there is no point sacrificing a pawn yet; they'll wait until something or multiple bad things happen and then they'll try and get rid. Otherwise as Boris knew when he stood down from being leader they know they will get the blame. However I don't expect May to last much beyond the next GE unless she is lucky.

2) Council elections next year in England. The Tories are not going to go into an election with article 50 not invoked. There would be a mutiny in the shires.

That could work both ways though. Only 50% voted to Leave, the rest voted to remain. Just ploughing on might just bring out the other unhappy crowd in large numbers because local election turnouts are generally poor.

3) The European Parliament elections are in 2019. If we haven't BREXITED by then, the UK faces the farcical situation of having to vote for MEPS for an institution that we voted to exit from!

That would definitely be an interesting position. Again if a frustrated pro-EU crowd voted in large numbers that could swing the majority away from UKIP (especially if that crowd no longer thought they needed UKIP). What I am unaware of is whether any deal with the EU would have to be voted on by the EU parliament. That would make interesting reading if our own MEPs then rejected the proposals? But I'm not sure whether it is the leaders that vote on the deal or the parliament.

Put your money on 2019 being the year of the new dawn.

Probably the dawn sky will be red though!





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see that May's true colours are showing through today...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/theresa-may-to-warn-un-of-dangers-of-uncontrolled-mass-migration

In particular her proposals are very convenient for her view of the UK i.e.

"May will propose three measures: helping refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach; a better distinction between refugees and economic migrants; and the right of all countries to control their borders, along with a responsibility to stop uncontrolled migration flows."

So in more basic terms. Make it more difficult for asylum seekers to get to the UK; make it easier for us to send them home; and allow us to pull up the drawbridge (which is at least achievable when surrounded by the sea, but for every land locked country that's only practical with a wall. So now we are looking at Theresa Trump leading the country.

In effect she is saying we'll hand over some money so the UK doesn't have to deal with the issue and let everyone else sort it out. It's pretty disgusting in my eyes. It's not like she has even a good grasp of the situation. Just throwing money isn't going to make things better. With population growth and climate change impacts which will inevitably lead to more conflicts that means more migration not less.

The other sad thing is that with these comments I think we can safely say that she will not go with free movement across the EU at any cost. That means no banking passport or free trade with the EU almost certainly; and given Poland/Slovakia etc views on the issue I think we can expect that any deal might be vetoed which means you are back to WHO trade agreements. That's potentially a lot of businesses that might 'up sticks and leave' for sunnier climates.

'It is called the exit clause but it's actually a trap that woud mean Britain would be reduced to a colonial state. No prime minister could ever do it. If article 50 becomes law, there is no way out.'
Nigel Farage in the Financial Times 2004.

Yes Farage was ranting about this rubbish earlier, the Leave campaign seem to think that by threatening "anger" and disgruntlement they can force the issue. They seem to forget that there is a highly motivated, and angrier third of the population determined to not make it an easy ride, and we are most definitely not going to roll over and let that disgusting bunch of arse boils UKIP romp home in any future elections, be they local or general elections.
In fact, I imagine that any party that shows a coherent strategy to get us back into Europe will probably do very well.

 r_squared wrote:
Yes Farage was ranting about this rubbish earlier, the Leave campaign seem to think that by threatening "anger" and disgruntlement they can force the issue. They seem to forget that there is a highly motivated, and angrier third of the population determined to not make it an easy ride, and we are most definitely not going to roll over and let that disgusting bunch of arse boils UKIP romp home in any future elections, be they local or general elections.
In fact, I imagine that any party that shows a coherent strategy to get us back into Europe will probably do very well.

So how about a grass roots new party called E(U)K?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mother-hit-by-benefits-blunder-v57fz2m0k

A single mother had to go to a food bank and feared that she would lose her home after Concentrix, the agency that checks tax credits, claimed that she was cohabiting with Joseph Rowntree, the 19th-century Quaker philanthropist.

The woman, who lives in a property provided by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, now a housing association, received a letter accusing her of being in a relationship with Rowntree. Rowntree died in 1925. She then found that her other benefits had been affected. Officials told her that she had to go through a lengthy appeal process.

Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for…

... Classy.


Bit of luck maybe we'll accept that there's a lot of areas in Govt. you cannot run as a business and get rid of parasitical agencies like this.


..... Yeah yeah, I know ...

In the name of Jebus.

Talk about Skeletons in the closet.....

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mother-hit-by-benefits-blunder-v57fz2m0k

A single mother had to go to a food bank and feared that she would lose her home after Concentrix, the agency that checks tax credits, claimed that she was cohabiting with Joseph Rowntree, the 19th-century Quaker philanthropist.

The woman, who lives in a property provided by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, now a housing association, received a letter accusing her of being in a relationship with Rowntree. Rowntree died in 1925. She then found that her other benefits had been affected. Officials told her that she had to go through a lengthy appeal process.

Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for…

... Classy.


Bit of luck maybe we'll accept that there's a lot of areas in Govt. you cannot run as a business and get rid of parasitical agencies like this.


..... Yeah yeah, I know ...

This reported a week or so ago. Concentrix are not having their contract renewed.

Daily Mail Editorial wrote:Single Parent Necrophiliacs in priority housing Shocka!

I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


This reported a week or so ago. Concentrix are not having their contract renewed.

It's not as simple as this unfortunately. Reading (IIRC) the BBC article on the issue this all stems from the way the contract was set up. It appears that the department is so desperate to make savings from the unnecessary cuts that they set up a contract that basically gave the winning company a significant share of any reduction in issuing credits (I think it said 50% but don't quote me on that). The issue is then that it actually incentivises companies to put low cost bids in (a saving) on the assumption of how much money they can make *not* paying out credits. Therefore their profit is based on taking an ultra hard line on benefits. You then put in a complicated appeals process and the idea is that only the most wilful will see the process through to the end. In the meantime the company has saved money and gets the share of the savings (and there's probably an incentive for staff to be hard nosed as well). Not all companies would have bid on this basis and probably took a more reasonable line on how much they could save from capturing fraudulent claims but it would have meant their bids weren't as competitive. In effect it's one (or a few) businesses giving the process a bad name. However you aren't going to solve the problem if you keep the contract fundamentally the same. You'll just get another company trying the same thing. It basically works on frustrating the most vulnerable people in society to the point they give up. It probably means that there are hundreds to thousands of other people that have had their benefits wrongly removed, its just that this example is so idiotic the company has been caught out.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

Went for an interview with ATOS once, to keep the job centre happy.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

Went for an interview with ATOS once, to keep the job centre happy.

Trying hard then....

 notprop wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

Went for an interview with ATOS once, to keep the job centre happy.

Trying hard then....

Might I suggest that talking about each others job prospects is better left for another post rather than this one? Unless of course your career aspirations are to become an MP!

 notprop wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

Went for an interview with ATOS once, to keep the job centre happy.

Trying hard then....

What? No, I mean the lady at the job centre suggested it to me and i agreed to apply and go to an interview. I didn't really want that job (because really, its ATOS). I typically don't turn down interviews, even for jobs I don't want. I got a job in a factory a couple weeks later. In fact I've been continuously employed since April. And I'm now working in a warehouse.

So if that's supposed to be some personal attack on me, you can jog on.

Edit: hell, I even went to a week long pre interview class room induction course for the ATOS job, so its hardly like I didn't put any effort into it.

Having spent a long time unemployed and inflicted by the Department of Work and Pensions (or whatever they are called this week) I feel for you.

The basic mission statement seems to be to make you feel like a piece of gak, feth you around as a punishment for the social crime of having become unemployed, and eventually order you to take any job available, whether you have any relevant skills, experience and training or not.

But they don't actually try to find you a job, you have to do that yourself at home using a computer and high speed broadband paid for by... ???

 Kilkrazy wrote:


But they don't actually try to find you a job, you have to do that yourself at home using a computer and high speed broadband paid for by... ???

Local Authority libraries. These days they pretty much all provide free to access computer terminals and many also include access to standard office packages as well to help with things like this. Unfortunately many are being closed because of (again unnecessary) budget cuts. And if you ask really nicely the people there and they aren't too busy they may help you out too.

Fortunately I've never been unemployed long enough to have to worry about going to a job centre so I've never had to deal with such services but I always get the impression the local authority officers are more thoughtful towards members of the public. Yes they sometimes have to say 'no' and many are overworked and under paid but of the few services you get they are actually employed for the benefit of the populace, unlike the civil servant services which are employed for the benefit of the government. So maybe that might attribute some of the attitude differences?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having spent a long time unemployed and inflicted by the Department of Work and Pensions (or whatever they are called this week) I feel for you.

The basic mission statement seems to be to make you feel like a piece of gak, feth you around as a punishment for the social crime of having become unemployed, and eventually order you to take any job available, whether you have any relevant skills, experience and training or not.

But they don't actually try to find you a job, you have to do that yourself at home using a computer and high speed broadband paid for by... ???

I've actually had a pretty positive experience overall. I guess I've always been good at ticking the boxes and being the ideal job seeker, always applying for a minimum of 20 - 30 jobs each week, accepting whatever bs training course or CV workshop they want to send me on no matter how many times I've done them. I've never been sanctioned or threatened with a sanction.

But a lot of my positive experience is down to having an excellent work coach. I got lucky I guess.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having spent a long time unemployed and inflicted by the Department of Work and Pensions (or whatever they are called this week) I feel for you.

The basic mission statement seems to be to make you feel like a piece of gak, feth you around as a punishment for the social crime of having become unemployed, and eventually order you to take any job available, whether you have any relevant skills, experience and training or not.

But they don't actually try to find you a job, you have to do that yourself at home using a computer and high speed broadband paid for by... ???

I've actually had a pretty positive experience overall. I guess I've always been good at ticking the boxes and being the ideal job seeker, always applying for a minimum of 20 - 30 jobs each week, accepting whatever bs training course or CV workshop they want to send me on no matter how many times I've done them. I've never been sanctioned or threatened with a sanction.

But a lot of my positive experience is down to having an excellent work coach. I got lucky I guess.

But you say it yourself, you tick the boxes and say the right things. Essentially you can just fill your job search record with rubbish and the person checking your claim that fortnight will probably congratulate you on your diligence or offer some standard platitude whilst they process your paperwork and call the next customer over.

The courses (and whatever their names are this month) really appear to be job creation schemes for the department. Mostly they are about PR for the DWP.

I would suggest to anyone to take a trip to their local job centre and spend half an hour milling around. One question you will ask yourself will be 'Why are there so many staff members, and what do they do all day'.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I almost ended up working for Concentrix.

Went for an interview with ATOS once, to keep the job centre happy.

Trying hard then....

What? No, I mean the lady at the job centre suggested it to me and i agreed to apply and go to an interview. I didn't really want that job (because really, its ATOS). I typically don't turn down interviews, even for jobs I don't want. I got a job in a factory a couple weeks later. In fact I've been continuously employed since April. And I'm now working in a warehouse.

So if that's supposed to be some personal attack on me, you can jog on.

Edit: hell, I even went to a week long pre interview class room induction course for the ATOS job, so its hardly like I didn't put any effort into it.

Job Seekers attending interviews for jobs that you won't accept seems like a very obvious symptom of a disfunctional system to me. That people think it's preferable to be unemployed rather than in work is bizarre, that it's possible even more so.

So if you think it's a personal attack suit yourself. No time to jog I'm afraid, far to busy at work.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:


This reported a week or so ago. Concentrix are not having their contract renewed.

It's not as simple as this unfortunately. Reading (IIRC) the BBC article on the issue this all stems from the way the contract was set up. It appears that the department is so desperate to make savings from the unnecessary cuts that they set up a contract that basically gave the winning company a significant share of any reduction in issuing credits (I think it said 50% but don't quote me on that). The issue is then that it actually incentivises companies to put low cost bids in (a saving) on the assumption of how much money they can make *not* paying out credits. Therefore their profit is based on taking an ultra hard line on benefits. You then put in a complicated appeals process and the idea is that only the most wilful will see the process through to the end. In the meantime the company has saved money and gets the share of the savings (and there's probably an incentive for staff to be hard nosed as well). Not all companies would have bid on this basis and probably took a more reasonable line on how much they could save from capturing fraudulent claims but it would have meant their bids weren't as competitive. In effect it's one (or a few) businesses giving the process a bad name. However you aren't going to solve the problem if you keep the contract fundamentally the same. You'll just get another company trying the same thing. It basically works on frustrating the most vulnerable people in society to the point they give up. It probably means that there are hundreds to thousands of other people that have had their benefits wrongly removed, its just that this example is so idiotic the company has been caught out.

This is a typical problem with any privatised "socialist" or natural monopoly (eg trains, utilities) - incentivising the private sector to operate efficiently (or normally!) doesn't lead to an optimum outcome for society.

Of course it won't, the goal of any Private company is to make a profit, unless it is specifically set up as a non-profit organisation, such as a charity.
A regulated non-profit organisation is appropriate for these type of issues, if not, it should remain firmly in the hands of Government.

However, Tories have a hard time grasping this as they see every issue in relation to finance, and "opportunity". Which they feel gives them the carte blanche right to demonise the unlucky and poor.
No job? it's clearly your own fault, goes the thinking. You're attempting to get something for nothing and should be made to feel like gak in order to claim something to which you are entitled and have also paid for in taxation.

Just like the Victorians.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having spent a long time unemployed and inflicted by the Department of Work and Pensions (or whatever they are called this week) I feel for you.

The basic mission statement seems to be to make you feel like a piece of gak, feth you around as a punishment for the social crime of having become unemployed, and eventually order you to take any job available, whether you have any relevant skills, experience and training or not.

But they don't actually try to find you a job, you have to do that yourself at home using a computer and high speed broadband paid for by... ???

I've actually had a pretty positive experience overall. I guess I've always been good at ticking the boxes and being the ideal job seeker, always applying for a minimum of 20 - 30 jobs each week, accepting whatever bs training course or CV workshop they want to send me on no matter how many times I've done them. I've never been sanctioned or threatened with a sanction.

But a lot of my positive experience is down to having an excellent work coach. I got lucky I guess.

But you say it yourself, you tick the boxes and say the right things. Essentially you can just fill your job search record with rubbish and the person checking your claim that fortnight will probably congratulate you on your diligence or offer some standard platitude whilst they process your paperwork and call the next customer over.

I was unemployed for four months after I left uni, and had no issues. They more or less just rubberstamped me through each week so long as I showed I was actually doing something. I was told that it wasn't until I hit the six month period that they'd begin to tighten up (so more meetings, training, etc), until then, they trusted me to just get on with it. My younger brother (currently on it) has had much the same experience.

I suspect the amount of hassle they give you is directly related to what they gauge your prospects and personal motivation to be. If you sound/look like a chav, miss half your appointments, have been on the dole for two years,and barely do anything, they will ride you hard and sanction you without thinking twice because they're desperate to get you off the books. If you show up polished, have drawn up your own action plan and get on with things quietly, they leave you alone for the most part.

I saw enough of the aforementioned types trying to attack the staff during my interviews there and being pulled away by security that I don't envy them the job.