UK Politics

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.

**Graphite**

How, exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't expect that to go over the page. What would May say, exactly, that would reassure the Irish government?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Graphite wrote:
How, exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't expect that to go over the page. What would May say, exactly, that would reassure the Irish government?

To be fair to May, she has stated that she doesn't want a return to the days of a hard border. That is the UK government's position, so I don't know how much more she can do, so I'm in agreement with you.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Graphite wrote:
How, exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't expect that to go over the page. What would May say, exactly, that would reassure the Irish government?

To be fair to May, she has stated that she doesn't want a return to the days of a hard border. That is the UK government's position, so I don't know how much more she can do, so I'm in agreement with you.

Hard is a very relative term. I don't expect much to change regarding individuals, but cross-border trade will depend a lot on whatever the EU-UK commercial treaty ends up looking like.

**Future War Cultist**

Jermony Corbyn offered his condolences to the P.S.N.I officer shot dead last weekend, even though he's not dead. I know his heart was in the right place but what a gaff.

Also, the people who did this have repeatedly killed before. They always become busy around election times.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Jermony Corbyn offered his condolences to the P.S.N.I officer shot dead last weekend, even though he's not dead. I know his heart was in the right place but what a gaff.

Also, the people who did this have repeatedly killed before. They always become busy around election times.

Yeah, Corbyn made a total arse out of himself.

I shouldn't be surprised, but Corbyn was awful. The Tories should be on the ropes. They've badly handled Brexit, lost two court cases they didn't need to fight, we've had the Trident debacle, the Southern rail debacle was a result of their measures, the Hinckley C backtrack, and so on and so on...

May and her party should be on the ropes, but alas, once more, Corbyn snatches defeat from the jaws of victory...

**Silent Puffin?**

Now that the PLP has been tamed he is free to act like a real opposition leader and made himself a constant presence in parliament and the media holding the Governments feet in the many, many fires that they have ignited.

As it is though Tim Farron has more presence and Labour isn't appealing to anyone any more. Labour is looking like it is becoming the modern version of the Liberal party. The sad thing is that it will all be blamed on the 'hard left' rather than Corbyn's lack of personal charisma and political presence.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Now that the PLP has been tamed he is free to act like a real opposition leader and made himself a constant presence in parliament and the media holding the Governments feet in the many, many fires that they have ignited.

As it is though Tim Farron has more presence and Labour isn't appealing to anyone any more. Labour is looking like it is becoming the modern version of the Liberal party. The sad thing is that it will all be blamed on the 'hard left' rather than Corbyn's lack of personal charisma and political presence.

I've been saying it for months - it's ironic that a party that wants to break away from the UK (the SNP) ends up providing more and effective opposition than the official opposition.

Angus Robertson has had Cameron and now May, on the spot quite a few times, as have many other SNP MPs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still can't believe that at one time, I used to vote for Labour...

**Silent Puffin?**

I gave Corbyn the benefit of the doubt when he was skirmishing with the PLP but now......

**Mr. Burning**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still can't believe that at one time, I used to vote for Labour...

It was an interesting experiment for me. I wont say it was fun whilst is lasted. Luckily, (depending on how you see it) I moved on some years ago.

Take Corbyn away and I think there will be even less to shout about.

**Kilkrazy**

Graphite wrote:
How, exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't expect that to go over the page. What would May say, exactly, that would reassure the Irish government?

I don't write her speeches for her, why expect me to answer that question?

**jouso**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Graphite wrote:
How, exactly?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops, didn't expect that to go over the page. What would May say, exactly, that would reassure the Irish government?

I don't write her speeches for her, why expect me to answer that question?

The issue is what can she say to reassure the Irish without contradicting her record on Brexit, which doesn't leave many options.

**r_squared**

This isn't really all that encouraging...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

I don't want to say that the Tories don't believe in an NHS free at the point of use, some might actually believe that, but I'm sure that the involvement of US business will impact the NHS in ways that will end up costing us more money, for less "free service".

**A Town Called Malus**

Get ready for the UK to sign up to the TTIP offer (but even worse) which the EU shot down.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Get ready for the UK to sign up to the TTIP offer (but even worse) which the EU shot down.

You can count on the SNP to fight it tooth and nail, but there's only so much you can do with 56 MPs in a Commons that has 600+ MPs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

r_squared wrote:
This isn't really all that encouraging...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

I don't want to say that the Tories don't believe in an NHS free at the point of use, some might actually believe that, but I'm sure that the involvement of US business will impact the NHS in ways that will end up costing us more money, for less "free service".

NHS Scotland ain't perfect, but thank God the Edinburgh government at least shields me from the worst of these crackpot Tory schemes.

**A Town Called Malus**

Well this is just great.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-quits-european-nuclear-body-pgmq9m9fc

Alternate sources:

Spoiler:

So yeah, the Tories (and Brexit in general) continue their push to totally cripple UK science. Well done them.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Well science produces experts, and I think I can speak for us all when I say we've had quite enough of them thank you very much.

**reds8n**

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/republican-senators-hope-trade-deal-will-open-up-the-nhs-to?utm_term=.ihNN14yLz#.uaOokJdNW

Theresa May is asking Donald Trump for a US–UK trade deal – but it could open up the NHS to competition from American companies.
Republican politicians at the party’s retreat in Philadelphia applauded as May made the case for a post-Brexit trade arrangement involving Britain and the US.
But they also made it clear to BuzzFeed News that they are likely to want something in return – and that could include improved access to the UK’s healthcare market.
Todd Young, a senator from Indiana, said he was receptive to the idea of a free-trade deal with the UK and said he is “always looking for opportunities to open up foreign markets” to goods and services produced in Indiana – including healthcare.
“The life sciences industry in my own state happens to be quite robust and a driver of job creation so there may be some opportunities there as well,” he said.
Asked whether a trade deal represented a good opportunity for such businesses to get involved in UK healthcare, he said: “Yes, indeed.
“We have a longstanding partnership, as was [described] by prime minister May, and we have a real opportunity to catalyse our respective economies.”
Fellow Republican senator Jim Risch of Idaho said he wanted a trade deal that resulted in businesses in both countries being able to increase trade: “Great Britain is one of our best … friends – we want to do business with them.”
Asked directly whether he would welcome a deal that would make it easier for US healthcare providers to get involved in the UK healthcare system, he said: “Absolutely.”

.................

Before her speech reporters asked the prime minister she would be willing to make it easier for US businesses to deal with the NHS if that was the price of a trade deal with Trump.
“As regards the NHS, we’re very clear as a government that we’re committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use,” she said, failing to rule out such a move but also making it clear that any discussions were yet to begin.
This prompted Labour’s Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, to call on the prime minister to confirm that “a rushed trade deal with President Trump will not be a Trojan horse for NHS privatisation”.
“The British people did not vote for Theresa May to use our NHS as a bargaining chip with Donald Trump,” he said.
But the majority of Republicans on the sidelines of the conference in Philadelphia were delighted by the possibilities. “It could be a real example globally for how countries are going to interact,” said Minnesota congressman Joe Lewis, a Brexit fan who said a trade deal would make it easier for US businesses to invest in Britain. “There’s so many opportunities to reinvigorate our wonderful alliance going back to 1789.”

... not really sure we were allies in 1789 ....

anyway : Thanks everyone who voted to drop us into this situation.

**Kilkrazy**

Hey, we've been allies since 1812! It is commemorated in the US National Anthem.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I have never voted Tory in my life.

Or do you mean my leave vote in June?

At any rate, 5 million Scots could never influence the June 23rd referendum. It was always going to be decided in England, as was the case.

**Whirlwind**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well this is just great.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-quits-european-nuclear-body-pgmq9m9fc

So yeah, the Tories (and Brexit in general) continue their push to totally cripple UK science. Well done them.

It looks like David Davis, being the moron that he is, did a google search with anything started with "Eu" and decided it would all be left behind without any real consideration of the impacts. It is however causing more localised issues...
For example once A50 is invoked it will become illegal to listen to the band 'Europe' and there are proposals for the members of Eurythmics to be deported with extreme prejudice at the earliest opportunity.

More seriously this is obviously another stupid idea from the increasing eccentric Tory party that by leaving an international recognised group that they will save money by cutting a few corners which when it comes to nuclear power couldn't be more scary in it's naivety.

**r_squared**

The point I'm not sure about is that the treaty is not part of the EU, so why are we leaving this as well?
According to the articles it's likely that the already expensive Hinckley C, could cost even more if this goes ahead.

What's the point? What am I missing?

**reds8n**

there' appears to be something of an odd trend in UK politics :

Spoiler:

remember : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-labour-leader-jam-a7211486.html

so what's that all about then eh ?

*space reserved for puns about sticky situations, Jam Tomorrow and so forth.*

**Whirlwind**

r_squared wrote:
This isn't really all that encouraging...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

I don't want to say that the Tories don't believe in an NHS free at the point of use, some might actually believe that, but I'm sure that the involvement of US business will impact the NHS in ways that will end up costing us more money, for less "free service".

I'm more than worried by this statement. The quote "As regards the NHS, we're very clear as a Government that we're committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use."

All it says is that when we turn up at the Doctor's or A&E it will be free. It does not however state that we won't be charged later, or need to pay for insurance to cover medical costs (so that it can be 'free at the point of use'). It appears the Tories are already planning to privatise the NHS and require us to pay in some way (otherwise why not just say 'free to use'); subsequently they are starting to shift their language. This would also then tie into opening the market to US because I can see that we will be required to buy into some form of insurance scheme and then when we get sick you'll be farmed off to the cheapest provider to try and sort it out (which being cheap will inevitably mean leave it is long as possible and hope you peg it or get better). Driving the NHS into the ground also means they can try and sell it to the public as a look how much better things will be when we make this change. It cannot be a coincidence that Arron Banks who massively supported to Leave the EU is also an insurance tycoon. You'd think it was all linked somehow....

**whembly**

Erm... the "shadow health secretary"???

wut?

Like this guy?

Spoiler:

**Whirlwind**

r_squared wrote:
The point I'm not sure about is that the treaty is not part of the EU, so why are we leaving this as well?
According to the articles it's likely that the already expensive Hinckley C, could cost even more if this goes ahead.

What's the point? What am I missing?

This would all be supposition but there's two possibilities in that a) They think it is just a payment to the EU for nothing (given what's happened in the last eight months I wouldn't be surprised) and that they think they might be able to hire consultants cheaper to do the work cheaper in the UK directly (basically by reducing numbers, number of inspections and so on). Euratom is also about ever improving nuclear safety and the government may feel that it is happy with the safety standards as is (so basically our nuclear safety standards become worse relatively).

More cynically Hinkley C (note the spelling...

, Hinckley is a small town in Leicestershire!) is based on a design that has yet been successfully implemented anywhere. EDFs flagship version in France has been plagued with design faults and is massively over budget. If it is believed that the issues have been found by Euratom (or a closely associated organisation) then there may be assumption that they are being 'picky' and that it would be best left to our own internal Nuclear compliance organisation for all compliance issues (which to note struggles to recruit) and additionally reports to the UK government not an external organisation. Therefore the UK government has more 'control' and determine what an appropriate risk is (and for the Tories vs cost).

**Steve steveson**

Whirlwind wrote:
r_squared wrote:
This isn't really all that encouraging...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

I don't want to say that the Tories don't believe in an NHS free at the point of use, some might actually believe that, but I'm sure that the involvement of US business will impact the NHS in ways that will end up costing us more money, for less "free service".

I'm more than worried by this statement. The quote "As regards the NHS, we're very clear as a Government that we're committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use." is a subtle shift.

I'm afraid that "free at the point of use" has always been how it has been put. The reason it is put like that is because it's not free, is paid for by tax.

**Whirlwind**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Well science produces experts, and I think I can speak for us all when I say we've had quite enough of them thank you very much.

Just to point out that:-

The computer you are using arose because of numerous experts.
The internet that you are using arose because of an army of experts.
The electricity you use to power the internet and you computer was designed by experts.
The mobile phone you use was designed by experts.
Pretty much everything you look at on your desk will have been created by experts, whether that is the ink in your pen or the paper you write on.

If you've had enough of experts might I suggest that you live in a cave, naked, with nothing but rocks, wood and leaves.

Because anything else is highly hypocritical in that you are happy to take the things the 'experts' create if you like them but you've had enough of them if they happen not agree with your point of view.

The idea that experts shouldn't monitor nuclear facilities would be terrifying. Can you imagine Gove in charge of one...

Nuclear safety expert (NSE): "See these Mr Gove, they are called control rods, they control how much heat is generated"
Gove: "Fascinating, so the less they are in the reactor the more heat we get out"
NSE: "Correct, but..."
Gove: "And the more heat means more steam and more electricity..."
NSE: "Yes, but..." whilst slowly moving towards door
Gove: "That means we could half the number of power plants we need to build by not having control rods"
NSE: "but..." (now driving steadily in car using hands free mobile phone)
Gove: "And I'll be able to solve the UKs energy crisis and get back into cabinet!"
NSE: "but, but..." In the background we can hear "final call for flights to Tenerife"
Gove: "In fact I can just replace the control rods with more plutonium and that will massively increases our energy reserves, I'm a genius!"
NSE: "Sigh....fine do what you want, I don't get paid enough for this type of c**p" (Now in Tenerife)
Gove: "See this is why we don't need expe...."

NSE: "Moron"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:

I'm afraid that "free at the point of use" has always been how it has been put. The reason it is put like that is because it's not free, is paid for by tax.

I accept that yes, we pay for the NHS by tax, but it doesn't allay my concerns that it allows too much room to introduce insurance schemes into the fold. Though I do accept I was wrong on just how long the wording has been used for. I must be getting old!

**Henry**

Whirlwind wrote:
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Well science produces experts, and I think I can speak for us all when I say we've had quite enough of them thank you very much.

Just to point out that:-

Just to point out that:- Mozzyfuzzy was clearly being sarcastic.

Steve steveson wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:
I'm more than worried by this statement. The quote "As regards the NHS, we're very clear as a Government that we're committed to an NHS that is free at the point of use." is a subtle shift.

I'm afraid that "free at the point of use" has always been how it has been put. The reason it is put like that is because it's not free, is paid for by tax.

What Steve steveson said. There's enough hyperbole and misinformation going around without trying to claim that a term that has been in accepted use for the NHS for a very long time is some sort of Tory skulduggery.

**Whirlwind**

Henry wrote:

I'm afraid that "free at the point of use" has always been how it has been put. The reason it is put like that is because it's not free, is paid for by tax.

What Steve steveson said. There's enough hyperbole and misinformation going around without trying to claim that a term that has been in accepted use for the NHS for a very long time is some sort of Tory skulduggery.

I did amend my statement. However I still don't like the phrasing, its too open to interpretation and I just don't trust the Tories not to wriggle through wording and yes I always believe they are up to some form of skulduggery.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

reds8n wrote:

there' appears to be something of an odd trend in UK politics :

Spoiler:

remember : http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-labour-leader-jam-a7211486.html

so what's that all about then eh ?

*space reserved for puns about sticky situations, Jam Tomorrow and so forth.*

Duchy Originals. Prince Charles and his Duchy Originals will be the spark that turns Britain into an exporting nation the likes of which the world has never seen.

You'd better believe it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Erm... the "shadow health secretary"???

wut?

Like this guy?

Spoiler:

Time for another British politics 101

In the UK, we obviously have a government, and obviously that government has various departments: health defence etc etc

The largest political party that is not the government is known as the opposition. Obviously.

And their job is to 'shadow' every government department and to scrutinise it and criticise it where appropriate.

The Minister of Defence will therefore have as his/her opposite number the Shadow Defence speaker.

But, if truth be told, our defence minister and the shadow defence spokesperson are so incompetent, I doubt if we would notice if they weren't there.

And, most British government departments these days are nothing more than branches of the Treasury, which has overeached itself for too long IMO.

But I won't bore you with the inner workings of our government.