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.

I thought the leave plan was to deny all claims and walk away?...

The main obstacle for Leave coming up with a plan is that good plans require experts and we all know how the Leave campaign and indeed the entire british people (according to them, at least) feel about experts.

 notprop wrote:
The Uk has always had plenty of vineyards, many awards too.

Is that your plan? Fortress England, the vinyards of England's green and pleasent land keeping those EU wines at bay?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The main obstacle for Leave coming up with a plan is that good plans require experts and we all know how the Leave campaign and indeed the entire british people (according to them, at least) feel about experts.

The SNP came up with a 600+ page white paper for Scottish independence. The corrupt British press attacked it for lacking detail.

Nigel Farage came up with a Leave plan written on the back of a beer mat, but the corrupt British press gave him a free pass.

I'm still mad at the double standards

And before somebody comes along to highlight the lack of detail in the white paper, I'll say this:

Look at the bigger picture. A 600 page white paper gets savaged in the press. A beer mat of promises gets ignored.

Tell me our print and broadcast media isn't a corrupt racket owned by tax exiles who own large estates in the Scottish Highlands.

I never had a problem with the white paper getting criticized, but as always, the double standards sickens me.

 Ketara wrote:
Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

A feeble plan that any competent organisation could get around in its collective sleep. Publicly available information is all that would be required and there must have been more than enough knowledgeable brexiteers to come up with something at least vaguely plausible. Evidently making gak up and blaming it all on 'millions of Turkish immigrants' was clearly a much more productive use of their time.

It seems that Micheal Fallon is dead set on blocking an EU army as it would "undermine NATO". Firstly how is he going to manage that from outside the EU and secondly how would greater cooperation undermine NATO? Do the Tories live in some kind of alternate reality?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

A feeble plan that any competent organisation could get around in its collective sleep. Publicly available information is all that would be required and there must have been more than enough knowledgeable brexiteers to come up with something at least vaguely plausible. Evidently making gak up and blaming it all on 'millions of Turkish immigrants' was clearly a much more productive use of their time.

It seems that Micheal Fallon is dead set on blocking an EU army as it would "undermine NATO". Firstly how is he going to manage that from outside the EU and secondly how would greater cooperation undermine NATO? Do the Tories live in some kind of alternate reality?

Normally, I'd be the first to say that the Tories are living in an alternate reality, but I am opposed to an EU army.

It will only serve to duplicate the existing command structures of NATO.

And of course, why does this project, that started off as a common market for trading between countries, need an army?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It will only serve to duplicate the existing command structures of NATO.

Which is already happening naturally, inter European military cooperation is the norm these days. How do the Tories plan to prevent the formation of an Eu army from outside the EU, looking sulky?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The SNP came up with a 600+ page white paper for Scottish independence.

The difference between the Independence white paper and the Brxiteer's howling vortex of nothing, and the reason why I didn't mention it, is that it was published by the Scottish Government so it had civil service assistance. You are right though, the SNP actually made thorough preparations for both outcomes.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

It will only serve to duplicate the existing command structures of NATO.

Which is already happening naturally, inter European military cooperation is the norm these days. How do the Tories plan to prevent the formation of an Eu army from outside the EU, looking sulky?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The SNP came up with a 600+ page white paper for Scottish independence.

The difference between the Independence white paper and the Brxiteer's howling vortex of nothing, and the reason why I didn't mention it, is that it was published by the Scottish Government so it had civil service assistance. You are right though, the SNP actually made thorough preparations for both outcomes.

I don't give two hoots for the Tories, or their plans on stopping an EU army (good luck with that)

but I cannot see the sense of it.

Let's be honest, without the USA, NATO isn't worth a bucket of horsegak.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

A feeble plan that any competent organisation could get around in its collective sleep. Publicly available information is all that would be required and there must have been more than enough knowledgeable brexiteers to come up with something at least vaguely plausible. Evidently making gak up and blaming it all on 'millions of Turkish immigrants' was clearly a much more productive use of their time.

Again, half and half. You are correct that a competent organisation could get around it. The question is, what organisation was there? You had three different leave campaigns, and all were focused on advertising. Noise above signal. There was no central 'Brexit' authority to be competent or not whilst the campaign was running, and certainly no unified organisation in the six month runup.

As I said previously, that's not much of an excuse, because Johnson, at the least, could have rectified the issue had he actually wanted to, he has the resources. But he was nothing more than a political opportunist. The SNP, at least, had the advantage of being a cohesive movement with access to a certain level of governmental resource and contacts. The Brexit 'campaign' was written on the back of a cigarette packet by individual opportunists and spinmen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Let's be honest, without the USA, NATO isn't worth a bucket of horsegak.

As it stands that is correct but given that the US provides so many capabilities the rest of NATO have allowed their own capabilities to narrow significantly while collectively armed forces have becoming smaller and smaller. This is something that an EU armed forces would actually overcome as it would allow different countries to provide different specialisations and free up individual countries resources to allow them to concentrate on their specialty (German Tanks, French Aircraft etc). I could definitely see a combined EU 'army' significantly increasing the military power of the region, potentially at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
There was no central 'Brexit' authority to be competent or not whilst the campaign was running, and certainly no unified organisation in the six month runup.

Which in no way absolves them of their incompetence. Surely someone somewhere took the time to actually think about that Brexit would actually mean? Surely? The current shambles sits almost entirely on the shoulders of the Brexiteers with the remaining blame falling on the government for piss poor contingency planning.

 Ketara wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Making the other side incapable of producing a feasible plan by denying them resources was part of the strategy used by the Remain dominated administration of the time, and definitely was a speedbump to any sort of prior planning.

A feeble plan that any competent organisation could get around in its collective sleep. Publicly available information is all that would be required and there must have been more than enough knowledgeable brexiteers to come up with something at least vaguely plausible. Evidently making gak up and blaming it all on 'millions of Turkish immigrants' was clearly a much more productive use of their time.

Again, half and half. You are correct that a competent organisation could get around it. The question is, what organisation was there? You had three different leave campaigns, and all were focused on advertising. Noise above signal. There was no central 'Brexit' authority to be competent or not whilst the campaign was running, and certainly no unified organisation in the six month runup.

As I said previously, that's not much of an excuse, because Johnson, at the least, could have rectified the issue had he actually wanted to, he has the resources. But he was nothing more than a political opportunist. The SNP, at least, had the advantage of being a cohesive movement with access to a certain level of governmental resource and contacts. The Brexit 'campaign' was written on the back of a cigarette packet by individual opportunists and spinmen.

This is the truth and it's the reason for the deafening silence from Leave after the "Leave" vote. There wasn't even a back of an envelope plan.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Which in no way absolves them of their incompetence. Surely someone somewhere took the time to actually think about that Brexit would actually mean? Surely? The current shambles sits almost entirely on the shoulders of the Brexiteers with the remaining blame falling on the government for piss poor contingency planning.

Therein lies the issue. Who is 'them'? There was no unified Brexit campaign management. Do we blame the political opportunists, like Johnson? The xenophobic frothers like Farage? The businessmen who reckoned they can make a buck and threw money around every which way? The campaigners who believed somebody else would be taking care of that end? Who, of all of them, was responsible for the planning? None of them were ultimately in charge, after all, there was no 'Brexit HQ'. For there to be a competent or incompetent organisation, there has to be an organisation first.

 Ketara wrote:
Do we blame the political opportunists, like Johnson? The xenophobic frothers like Farage? The businessmen who reckon they can make a buck and threw money around every which way? The campaigners who believed somebody else would be taking care of that end? Who, of all of them, was responsible for the planning?

All of them. If there were a range of plans that these august politicians and organisations had drawn up, even if they are opposed, then that's one thing. that fact that there isn't even one well that's damning.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
. Do we blame the political opportunists, like Johnson? The xenophobic frothers like Farage? The businessmen who reckon they can make a buck and threw money around every which way? The campaigners who believed somebody else would be taking care of that end? Who, of all of them, was responsible for the planning? None of them were ultimately in charge, after all, there was no 'Brexit HQ'.

All of them.

See, I'm actually more inclined to blame the government on that score. They are, after all, the ones we quite literally pay to run the country. The Brexit campaigners, fund donors, etc, are ultimately just cogs in a single campaign machine with an commensurate level of resource and responsibility. There are a few exceptions (as noted), but the ultimate burden of forward planning must fall upon the State. It is literally their job description. And instead of making adequate preparation, they decided instead to actively sabotage any hope we might have had (as a country) of being prepared for the decision, whatever it was when it came back.

Selfish, arrogant fethers.

Ketara. you make some good points, but compare and contrast to the No campaign in the 1973 EEC referendum.

They weren't government, and they were a mixed bag like 2016's leave campaign,

but people like Tony Benn were still able to cobble up a plan in the event that Britain said No to the EEC.

The difference is I suppose, that politicians back then were far superior to the misfits we have in this day and age.

Getting back to other news, what are people's opinions of Jeremy cHunt's latest idea for improving the NHS?

The problems in my view are these:

Medical school applications have been falling for some years, because the Tories have been making it a lot shittier to be a doctor than it used to be.
You can't just wave a magic wand and add 25% more places in medical school, even if you can find students to fill them.
Medical students are currently expected to pay about £50,000 for the privilege of attending university, after which their continuing on the job training as house officers is done at close to slave labour conditions. Why the feth should they be compelled to work in the NHS for four years?
It takes about 10 years to train a junior doctor (starting from choosing the right A Levels.) Even if this new plan works brilliantly, it will take over 30 years to produce enough British born doctors to replace all the foreign doctors, because junior doctors need years of additional experience and training to become senior doctors and consultants.
As well as the above, GPs are not NHS employees, so how can junior GPs be compelled to work in the NHS without them failing to get the OJT needed to join the Royal College of GPs?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Getting back to other news, what are people's opinions of Jeremy cHunt's latest idea for improving the NHS?

The problems in my view are these:

Medical school applications have been falling for some years, because the Tories have been making it a lot shittier to be a doctor than it used to be.
You can't just wave a magic wand and add 25% more places in medical school, even if you can find students to fill them.
Medical students are currently expected to pay about £50,000 for the privilege of attending university, after which their continuing on the job training as house officers is done at close to slave labour conditions. Why the feth should they be compelled to work in the NHS for four years?
It takes about 10 years to train a junior doctor (starting from choosing the right A Levels.) Even if this new plan works brilliantly, it will take over 30 years to produce enough British born doctors to replace all the foreign doctors, because junior doctors need years of additional experience and training to become senior doctors and consultants.
As well as the above, GPs are not NHS employees, so how can junior GPs be compelled to work in the NHS without them failing to get the OJT needed to join the Royal College of GPs?

In other words, we're fethed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Getting back to other news, what are people's opinions of Jeremy cHunt's latest idea for improving the NHS?

What is to be expected from someone who wrote a book about scrapping the NHS.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Getting back to other news, what are people's opinions of Jeremy cHunt's latest idea for improving the NHS?

The problems in my view are these:

Medical school applications have been falling for some years, because the Tories have been making it a lot shittier to be a doctor than it used to be.
You can't just wave a magic wand and add 25% more places in medical school, even if you can find students to fill them.
Medical students are currently expected to pay about £50,000 for the privilege of attending university, after which their continuing on the job training as house officers is done at close to slave labour conditions. Why the feth should they be compelled to work in the NHS for four years?
It takes about 10 years to train a junior doctor (starting from choosing the right A Levels.) Even if this new plan works brilliantly, it will take over 30 years to produce enough British born doctors to replace all the foreign doctors, because junior doctors need years of additional experience and training to become senior doctors and consultants.
As well as the above, GPs are not NHS employees, so how can junior GPs be compelled to work in the NHS without them failing to get the OJT needed to join the Royal College of GPs?

It's a slight lean in the right direction when what's needed are several steps. Too little, too late. Hunt should have been removed a long time ago. I suspect either May knows something we don't, or she's running short on competent help. Probably the latter, considering she went so far as to resurrect ol' Davis. It's one of the reasons (I think) she gave several reasonably low ranking frontbenchers cabinet promotions; she wasn't just trying to kick out the rich boys, but try and raise some more next-generation talent. Everything I've read about the woman indicates that she likes to nurture and govern in conjunction with trusted subordinates, so to speak; instead of the Blair/Cameron presidental style of running things. It's why she's brought back government by Cabinet as a concept, instead of just having orders just coming down from on high.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Try telling that to these people.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/458625.stm

wtf? I've heard of the US Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, but I had no idea the British military had a similar ban on gays. And it doesn't make sense anyway - presumably, they ban gays to prevent inappropriate fraternization within units. But by that same logic, shouldn't they then ban women too, or segregate by gender...

As I joined up before the gay ban was removed we were interviewed prior to attestation and asked to declare our sexuality. We were also asked what action we would take if we discovered that someone was gay, the correct answer being to report them.
The reasoning given to me was that homosexuality was likely to cause problems with unit cohesion. Women were also segregated by accommodation, and certain branches of the armed forces and career choices were banned such as infantry, pilot, firefighter etc. Fratenisation between ranks is still frowned upon, but usually a blind eye is turned, before it was absolutely forbidden, and a 24 hour posting would be enacted after disciplinary procedures were carried out.
Perhaps It's all a bit weird to those not steeped in the military, but tbh most of the armed forces have only emerged from the 1950s about 10 years ago. Some parts are still there.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Getting back to other news, what are people's opinions of Jeremy cHunt's latest idea for improving the NHS?

The problems in my view are these:

Medical school applications have been falling for some years, because the Tories have been making it a lot shittier to be a doctor than it used to be.
You can't just wave a magic wand and add 25% more places in medical school, even if you can find students to fill them.
Medical students are currently expected to pay about £50,000 for the privilege of attending university, after which their continuing on the job training as house officers is done at close to slave labour conditions. Why the feth should they be compelled to work in the NHS for four years?
It takes about 10 years to train a junior doctor (starting from choosing the right A Levels.) Even if this new plan works brilliantly, it will take over 30 years to produce enough British born doctors to replace all the foreign doctors, because junior doctors need years of additional experience and training to become senior doctors and consultants.
As well as the above, GPs are not NHS employees, so how can junior GPs be compelled to work in the NHS without them failing to get the OJT needed to join the Royal College of GPs?

It's a slight lean in the right direction when what's needed are several steps. Too little, too late. Hunt should have been removed a long time ago. I suspect either May knows something we don't, or she's running short on competent help. Probably the latter, considering she went so far as to resurrect ol' Davis. It's one of the reasons (I think) she gave several reasonably low ranking frontbenchers cabinet promotions; she wasn't just trying to kick out the rich boys, but try and raise some more next-generation talent. Everything I've read about the woman indicates that she likes to nurture and govern in conjunction with trusted subordinates, so to speak; instead of the Blair/Cameron presidental style of running things. It's why she's brought back government by Cabinet as a concept, instead of just having orders just coming down from on high.

I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

On the other hand, when you have a Health minister who has basically turned the entire NHS, and a sizeable amount of the population because of that, against him, can the inexperienced junior minister or back bencher actually do any worse?

UKIP's leader has resigned after two weeks in the job! WTF?

I smell a Farage comback


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

On the other hand, when you have a Health minister who has basically turned the entire NHS, and a sizeable amount of the population because of that, against him, can the inexperienced junior minister or back bencher actually do any worse?

Given the dire state Labour finds itself in these days, the Tories could probably appoint Ant and Dec to the Health Ministry, and they'd still win in 2020!

 r_squared wrote:

Perhaps It's all a bit weird to those not steeped in the military, but tbh most of the armed forces have only emerged from the 1950s about 10 years ago. Some parts are still there.

Its all a bit strange really. The 'big' Army is very much an equal opportunities employer which goes out of its way to reach out to minority groups, there is a massive push towards the LGBT community at the moment which considering the number of lesbians in the Army isn't all that surprising. On the other hand the Armed Forces are attractive to people of a certain mindset, you don't have to look very far before you run into a massive bigot, often in senior positions, the Equality & Diversity Officer in my last unit was one of the worst racists I have ever met....

It wasn't that long ago that abuse and harassment were a matter of course but things are completely different now, the current generation of soldiers just aren't interested in such things. I have never seen any actual harassment in my 12 years service (just lots of nasty 'jokes' in the Mess but that is dying out at the old crusties retire)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

On the other hand, when you have a Health minister who has basically turned the entire NHS, and a sizeable amount of the population because of that, against him, can the inexperienced junior minister or back bencher actually do any worse?

Yep. But I think May is allowing cHunt/Bozza to gather enough rope to hang themselves. Remember that despite winning the Tory leadership, she still has to deal with the old gaks, the Europhobes and so on. One way to do this is to allow their darlings to be proved as useless craphats by actual experience of power, and thereby appeal to the wider party and electorate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One way to do this is to allow their darlings to be proved as useless craphats by actual experience of power, and thereby appeal to the wider party and electorate.

Jeremy Hunt had already don't significant and highly visable damage, there was no need to allow him to keep his job unless May actually approved of his ham fisted 'style' (short of some Machiavellian plot).

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

On the other hand, when you have a Health minister who has basically turned the entire NHS, and a sizeable amount of the population because of that, against him, can the inexperienced junior minister or back bencher actually do any worse?

Yep. But I think May is allowing cHunt/Bozza to gather enough rope to hang themselves. Remember that despite winning the Tory leadership, she still has to deal with the old gaks, the Europhobes and so on. One way to do this is to allow their darlings to be proved as useless craphats by actual experience of power, and thereby appeal to the wider party and electorate.

Whilst this is true and a tried and tested political technique, I can't help but think that cHunt has already got enough rope to hang himself several times over with enough spare to be used to lower him into the grave. This was the person who it took months and several doctors strikes to appear on TV and say "Talking to people is good."

Farge says he's technically still UKIP leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/nigel-farage-says-he-may-technically-still-be-ukip-leader

He's had a few months break, he's missing the limelight, UKIP are a mess without him, and he's 'reluctantly' entering the fray.

I've been proven right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I was thinking about the same points. My conclusion is that May is genuinely short on front bench talent, so she has promoted or retained some relative idiots (e.g. Bozza and Hunt) because she can't find any better yet. She will blame their failures on themselves, and hope to breed up new talent from the junior ministers and back benches.

On the other hand, when you have a Health minister who has basically turned the entire NHS, and a sizeable amount of the population because of that, against him, can the inexperienced junior minister or back bencher actually do any worse?

Yep. But I think May is allowing cHunt/Bozza to gather enough rope to hang themselves. Remember that despite winning the Tory leadership, she still has to deal with the old gaks, the Europhobes and so on. One way to do this is to allow their darlings to be proved as useless craphats by actual experience of power, and thereby appeal to the wider party and electorate.

There's one flaw with your post: everybody knows they're useless! They don't need more time in government to prove that!

Fox has already disgraced himself in the past, Bojo is buffoon, and only Davis is the unknown quantity for the majority of the electorate.

May's not giving them rope, these appointments were nothing more than red meat to throw to the die-hard Euro-Skeptics in the Tory party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amber Rudd is drawing up plans to get firms to list how many foreign workers they employ, and shame those that don't take on enough British staff

It's in The Times...

I have no regrets at voting to leave, but neither did I anticipate the Tories going full 1950s mode

Coming on top of Liam Fox's claim that the French need high quality British fruit preserves, so we'll get a good deal from them , and Andrea Leadsom's Dig for Victory appeal, the Tories have let the mask well and truly slip.

They always do this when they're on top, and when the the opposition is so feeble. They did it in the 1980s and 1990s, and now they're doing it again...

As always, they'll get a rude awakening down the line, but how much damage by then?

England prevails. Moore was right on the spot.

This is starting to look scary. To think I once thought about moving to the UK...

LBCs James O'Brien had this to say in response to Amber Rudd:

https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154347212196558/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I have no regrets at voting to leave, but neither did I anticipate the Tories going full 1950s mode

That's pretty much why I voted to stay. I've lately held the belief that the Tories are the most dangerous threat to the country (and I even voted for them once, because they promised (and actually did) scrap that National ID scheme farce. I've since learned my lesson).