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.

The Philipines......that country where government death squads and mob/vigilante justice is out of control?

Lol, there's some top level porcine-based trolling going on here.

The Philipines......that country where government death squads and mob/vigilante justice is out of control?

Lol, there's some top level porcine-based trolling going on here.

I an uncle there. You do realize its only in the slums where its anywhere near what the media shows it. Its safer than most cities in the US.

The topic of this thread is "UK Politics"

Let's get back on-topic and stop the side-bar discussions of other countries / etc, please.

Thanks all...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/esther-mcvey-lies-work-pensions-universal-credit

Universal credit, the brainchild of Ian Duncan Smith is causing poverty and misery to thousands and is unfit for use. McVey lied to parliament about key issues and received a reprimand from the National Audit Office, but nothing from the Govt so far.

The article makes an interesting point, everything IDS, a ferocious Brexit advocate, does seems to go down the toilet as it is usually based on ideology, not good ideas. At what point do these individuals get held to account?

Portillo is responsible for the Annington homes scandal, an issue so profoundly expensive and damaging it will cost the taxpayer millions and could cripple the MoD, yet he continues to swan about making TV shows about trains. Where's the accountability for your decision making? Where's the personal responsibility?

How does IDS continue to get elected?

 r_squared wrote:


How does IDS continue to get elected?

Chingford.

I stood as a Labour Council Candidate there sometime in the 90's - the paper they used to keep tallies of candidates votes ran out of space for the Tory candidates. You could put up a monkey there and still win if it had a blue rosette.

Mario wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:Article 11 is more specific. It basically provides copyright to the owners of the original press articles (but does allow their use for research and insubstantial elements of it). basically it prevents farming of news unless agreed by the owner (you can see this yahoo news, google news etc. This could apply to online newspapers that have a pay wall for example. I guess the principle is that if another company earns advertising revenue (like google, yahoo, microsoft etc) using someone else's works is then that fair? (I'd note non for profit website, online encyclopedias are exempt from this I believe). Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.

The risk is that there are unintended consequences. In this thread for example we have to stop copying and pasting whole articles because, I assume, some advertising revenue. However the implementation by individual governments will be key. It may be that ancilliary to main purpose may be considered fair use on the basis that it is 'research' on a topic. We already cannot, for example, paste electronic rules on the site!

They wanted something like that here in Germany and it backfired completely. If you have a google search that link needs some text to click on (like a title and a sentence or two). You can't just click on some empty void and hope to get the right article without any context. Media companies wanted licensing fees for that because google "makes money of their work" and Google (even as filthy rich as they are) could never pay that much so they just stopped linking to those publishers to comply with their wishes. Those companies then whined because their online readership collapsed (and thus their online advertising market). Now they want to try something similar in the whole of the EU. That should end up fun.

And the vote failed. Despite having people like Paul Mcartney for it.

For arguments' sake, here is the take of a Conservative MP on why did he vote for:

https://www.danieldaltonmep.co.uk/news/my-views-copyright-directive

Universal credit in and of itself, is not a bad idea. One consolidated payment cuts down on all the associated costs with running different payments through half a dozen systems.

The problem is when you use the opportunity of re-instituting it to sneak in another dozen hidden cuts to people who really need the money...

And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.

It's done in the most callous way possible.

But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?

Herzlos wrote:
And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.

It's done in the most callous way possible.

But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?

Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.

It's done in the most callous way possible.

But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?

Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.

Living on a council estate for a good chunk of my life, I've seen plenty of both stripes. To the point where I think there's probably as many of one as t'other. Or there were (claiming it now is probably too much hassle).

That being said, pressuring desperate poor people to try and penalise the ones who do take the mick a little is inhumane. 'We need to save a few bob and some people rip off the benefits system; so let's make life intolerable for all people on the system' really isn't the solution. Not when the quantities of money saved are so utterly piffling. When you squeeze the pennies out the poor until they squeak only to throw it away in firing off a few dozen missiles at the Middle-East for virtually no gain? It says a lot about your priorities.

New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.

I thought those hard Brexiteers were launching their coup d'état against May tomorrow?

Obviously I'm on the Brexit side, but even I weary of constant threats of letters to the 1922 committee.

If they're going to bring down May, then walk the walk.


I've always had a grudging respect for people who do what they said they'd do, even if I disagree with them e.g Remain supporting dakka members. At least you lot have stuck to your guns and stood up for what you believed in, unlike those so called EU supporters in The Commons.

Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.

Why would they do that, they would lose their political capability for blackmail.
That would weaken them. Now the only question is who throws first and gives in.

I dunno, I think there is an argument to be made for acting in what you think is the best interest of the country. That is what representative democracy is about. I agree with DINLT, British parliamentary democracy seems badly atrophied. It is quite shocking to me - we used to be able to get the British channels at home when I was a kid and I always looked upon British politicians and the whole process in the House of Commons as more dignified and the participants better educated than in Ireland. Now I think I was just taken in by confidence and posh accents, and in reality there are few of them of any substance. I am questioning the value of an Oxbridge education as well, seeing as a country run almost exclusively by people of that background is in such a shambles.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.

Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.

Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?

So you're in favour MP's tanking Brexit then?

 Da Boss wrote:
I dunno, I think there is an argument to be made for acting in what you think is the best interest of the country. That is what representative democracy is about. I agree with DINLT, British parliamentary democracy seems badly atrophied. It is quite shocking to me - we used to be able to get the British channels at home when I was a kid and I always looked upon British politicians and the whole process in the House of Commons as more dignified and the participants better educated than in Ireland. Now I think I was just taken in by confidence and posh accents, and in reality there are few of them of any substance. I am questioning the value of an Oxbridge education as well, seeing as a country run almost exclusively by people of that background is in such a shambles.

It wasn't always like that. The Tories used to believe in meritocracy at one time, Thatcher and Major being prime examples of people from humble backgrounds getting to the top, and of course, Labour had a few PMs of that mould as well.

As for MPs, I can't even say the old days were better, because they weren't. Up here in Scotland, Labour dominated for decades, and the vote was weighed, with the end result that it was a jobs for the boys mentality = gak poor MPs who got the nod because they played golf with the right people, rather than any great talent for the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.

Yeah, but what about the great tradition of Edmund Burke and MPs keeping their own judgment?

So you're in favour MP's tanking Brexit then?

Hand on heart, I'm just waiting for something to be done. 2 years I've been waiting for Brexit!!!!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Hand on heart, I'm just waiting for something to be done. 2 years I've been waiting for Brexit!!!!

You're getting exactly what you voted for, a political clusterfeth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
New Customs plan from Mrs May looks like a hybrid of the two already existing plans which have been rejected by the EU. Typically, Hard Brexiteers are already slagging it off.

We're back to the mythical technology that doesn't exist yet but hopefully will do at some point when we need it. How long until the EU says "no we've told you this before"

Tory councillor and MP candidate (and ex Blind Date and Crystal Maze contestant, apparently) Andrew Livsey gets two comments and a question, which Dimbleby asks him to expand on, on QT. Totally by accident, I’m sure.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
And completely unnecessary delays with arbitrary cancellation of it if they every hit a threshold. So you can have someone on zero hours get enough shifts one week to drop them off it, and then they are stuck waiting 6 weeks (?) to start getting paid again.

It's done in the most callous way possible.

But in theory a simplified benefits system should save a lot of money. It's wasted though, as is typical for the Tories. More money spent denying people disability benefits than saved in disability benefits, with a huge appeal success ratio. If you're spending more than you save and usually being overturned, surely it's better to just give the people the dang money?

Because that dent's their view that they really are just lazy people that can't be bothered to get a job compared to reality where they are people that really are down on their luck or have other issues to contend with.

Living on a council estate for a good chunk of my life, I've seen plenty of both stripes. To the point where I think there's probably as many of one as t'other. Or there were (claiming it now is probably too much hassle).

That being said, pressuring desperate poor people to try and penalise the ones who do take the mick a little is inhumane. 'We need to save a few bob and some people rip off the benefits system; so let's make life intolerable for all people on the system' really isn't the solution. Not when the quantities of money saved are so utterly piffling. When you squeeze the pennies out the poor until they squeak only to throw it away in firing off a few dozen missiles at the Middle-East for virtually no gain? It says a lot about your priorities.

It's rare that we agree, but in this you're absolutely spot on. I've also been raised on council estates and know for a fact that for every example of the "virtuous poor" theres a chancing scrounger out to get something for nothing.
However at this end of the financial spectrum the budget impact of these reforms is tiny, especially as it is dwarfed by the amount spent on pensions. If they took the money and effort spent on introducing this new benefits system and turned it towards reforming taxation, they'd probably increase receipts.
However, I'm no accountant, I have no proposals to suggest about how we'd do that.

 r_squared wrote:

However at this end of the financial spectrum the budget impact of these reforms is tiny,

Aye, and the impact disproportionate. If you went to raise the equivalent sum from the defence budget, the NHS, income tax, or most other things; it would barely be noticeable. But for those who have nothing, the impact on their lives of cutting even the tiniest sum is huge. It can tip you over the line into poverty and the street. It's no coincidence that more people than ever are using food banks, and those aren't the people ripping off the dole. There's more people on the streets than ever before. These are the people that these pressures have hit; not those who do cash in hand building work and sign on on the side.

In the light of all that, we fired 8 Stormshadow missiles at IS in March this year alone, at a cost of £2.5 million pounds each. Now I don't resent spending the money on the defence budget, but I do find it highly telling that the government can fire and replace 20 million pounds worth of 'fire and forget' military hardware without a murmur; when the magic money tree doesn't appear for those who need the cash most desperately. A billion pounds can be found to address deprivation and health services in Ireland when there's votes on the line; but those sitting in say, Sunderland, don't get jack.

I accept that Brexit is a highly complicated affair, but I don't buy that it absolves the government of all their other responsibilities. Having given her the year honeymoon to see what she is about, I judge May a failure as a Prime Minister. She pissed her majority away on an election she fumbled through egotism and overconfidence, and has consequently prioritised holding onto the reins of power above all else. Above the need for effective governance, above the need to address the many other issues than Brexit Britain faces, and above the interests of the people. Even if she pulls Brexit off, she screwed up plenty elsewhere to counterbalance it.

The most depressing thing is that I don't see much in the way of replacements. Probably the only Tory I'd look at would be Sajid Javid. Tom Watson is a bit of an eel, but I might go for him depending on policies. Both are distinctly second rate; but when surrounded by third and fourth rate politicians, you take what you can get. Vince would have worked for me, but he's past his prime now; we don't need another Gladstone situation.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Once again I feel the need to point out they're representing a constituancy in the house of commons. And as most constituants voted brexit they'd be pretty silly to get in the way of the will of the people, it'd certainly be immoral of them to stand up for things probably even treasonous.

Yeah but that's not how it works they are supposed to act on behalf of there constituents but taking into consideration what is best for them and the country not specifically what they want.

Besides most of the Tory brexit loons are from remain constituencies that inbred Moggy being a prime example.

To your final question yes MP's should be kicking Brexit out due to the permanent damage it is going to do to the country thats there actual job, sadly as normal Tory scum put party before country.

The "will of the People" bollocks is a little hollow to say the least and is mostly spouted by the right wing swivel eyed loons and those that stand to profit and/or doge incoming tax laws.

MP's should be acting in the best interest of all their constituents,
And not tired to a non-binding referendum.
The referendum has resulted in thousands of hours of analysis and research (just not from any prominent brexiteers) and is looking totally unworkable/unviable. So I don't think there's any problem in saying "you voted to leave so we've spent 2 years looking into it and don't think it's in the best intrrest of the country, so we're going to remain in and try to address your concerns with powers we already have whilst taking full advantage of the benefits of the union".

It'll upset the brothers but they are going to be upset anyway. But at least that way we don't need to raise taxes to keep the lights on.

Obviously I'm on the Brexit side

I think this is a big problem and why no progress is getting made. There seem to be a lot of people who only care about Brexit happening so will always side with brexit regardless of the implications. There's no meaningful debate with that level of zealotry, because there can be no compromise or criticism.

It's gone so far that some Brexiteers can't even admin Farage or Johnson have done anything wrong. I suspect because if they start to accept some shortcoming of Brexit the whole house of cards comes down.

Herzlos wrote:
MP's should be acting in the best interest of all their constituents,
And not tired to a non-binding referendum.
The referendum has resulted in thousands of hours of analysis and research (just not from any prominent brexiteers) and is looking totally unworkable/unviable. So I don't think there's any problem in saying "you voted to leave so we've spent 2 years looking into it and don't think it's in the best intrrest of the country, so we're going to remain in and try to address your concerns with powers we already have whilst taking full advantage of the benefits of the union".

Which is what they should have done before invoking article 50.

See. One of three things is going to happen.

1. Second referendum, and we stay in.

2. We crash out with No Deal. Economy turns to gak, possibly sorting out house prices as a single cherry on the Dogpoo. We come to our senses, and rejoin on worse terms (no rebate, lesser influence)

3. We get a one-sided deal. Economy turns to gak, possibly sorting out house prices as a single cherry on the Dogpoo. We comes to our senses, and rejoin on worse terms (no rebate, lesser influence)

Yeah it's pretty much a given that we'll rejoin.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah it's pretty much a given that we'll rejoin.

I'd disagree with that tenuous hypothesis. Time will tell.

When the economy is in the gutter, and the Brexit generation are dead, it’ll happen.