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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats an idiotic headline generating policy. So gunowners now have State blessing to use their firearms for self defence? So fething what? Does this policy amount to Conceal and Carry? If Gun-owners are still not allowed to carry their guns on their person as they go about their daily life then it won't do any good because they'll never have their guns at hand when they need them.

What use are their guns in self defence, if the're locked away at home (because they'd be arrested for carrying them in public) and they get caught up in a terror attack at a concert or market or crossing a bridge on their way to work or on the London Underground? What good is a gun, if it gets confiscated by security at a Concert and the Police come to arrest YOU as a terror suspect?

We seen the response tactics, and the polices fact in London its going nigh on immediate military response forces.
Your more likely to get shot than help and cause more panic as police think your another attacker diluting there response to real attacker...

 theCrowe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Dunno about that man... we have our own chaos here in the states.

But, hey... Pueto Ricoans just voted overwhelmingly to join as the 51st state.

Not really, only 23% turned out to vote since it was boycotted by all opposition parties.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/americas/puerto-rico-statehood-referendum/index.html

Yeah, I was a bit miffed at that myself. Given they Oscar Lopez Rivera was just released and he's like the Puerto Ricoan Nelson Mandela. If anything I would've thought they'd be going for full on de-colonization.

Puerto Rico is totally bankrupt. Not the best time to go all take back control and sovereignty stuff.

And the why is a very interesting read. Basically PR had a legal loophole which made many US companies put up subsidiaries there. Clinton closed that loophole and basically wiped the Puerto Rican economy in a swift strike. Low taxes became unsustainable and the exodus continued.

The government borrowed and borrowed to cover the income gap until it finally declared themselves bankrupt-ish earlier this year.

The PR and Oklahoma cases should be mandatory reading for any de-regulation gurus. I'll try to sneak a few copies at a Tory convention next time I'm in Britain.

The battles of summer have begun a new and the Fury road has reopened. The French have not solved the problem, only managed to nudge them to new locations.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3788532/calais-migrants-spark-blazing-roadblocks-in-bid-to-stop-and-jump-on-trucks-bound-for-britain-as-violence-returns-to-french-city/

Good luck and stay safe if your planning to drive that road.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats an idiotic headline generating policy. So gunowners now have State blessing to use their firearms for self defence? So fething what? Does this policy amount to Conceal and Carry? If Gun-owners are still not allowed to carry their guns on their person as they go about their daily life then it won't do any good because they'll never have their guns at hand when they need them.

What use are their guns in self defence, if the're locked away at home (because they'd be arrested for carrying them in public) and they get caught up in a terror attack at a concert or market or crossing a bridge on their way to work or on the London Underground? What good is a gun, if it gets confiscated by security at a Concert and the Police come to arrest YOU as a terror suspect?

We seen the response tactics, and the polices fact in London its going nigh on immediate military response forces.
Your more likely to get shot than help and cause more panic as police think your another attacker diluting there response to real attacker...

This whole affair is a good example of why elected police and crime commissioners are arguably a bad idea.

The PCC blurted out this possibly popular proposal without waiting to consult the police themselves.

So what exactly is May's negotiating position to ensure DUP compliance? Seems to me like she's not exactly in a great position to avoid having to concede too much for their support.
Maybe someone should tell her about the city hall flag. They'd do anything for that!

 jhe90 wrote:
The battles of summer have begun a new and the Fury road has reopened. The French have not solved the problem, only managed to nudge them to new locations.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3788532/calais-migrants-spark-blazing-roadblocks-in-bid-to-stop-and-jump-on-trucks-bound-for-britain-as-violence-returns-to-french-city/

Good luck and stay safe if your planning to drive that road.

If I recall correctly Macron was proposing once we left the EU that the new location would be our side of the channel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


This whole affair is a good example of why elected police and crime commissioners are arguably a bad idea.

The PCC blurted out this possibly popular proposal without waiting to consult the police themselves.

I think you are being too negative, look at the positives. Arm the populace, then let them "take back control".

Give it six months and the Leave and Remain side would be shooting each other. We'd quickly devolve into a brief, but bloody, civil war.

Then whichever side is left standing gets their say on Wrexit. It solves many other problems too. The number of pensioners we'd have to support would rapidly decrease; there would no longer be a housing shortage; there wouldn't be an economy to worry about; and no one in there right mind would want to come here from any part of the world ever again, immediately solving the "immigration crisis". Sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea. All the police have to do is protect places like schools etc.

Considering all the negative press and the fact that most of the people on the mainland haven't even heard of the DUP, it could very well be in the DUP's interests to just go. "Hey, we're not jerks as much as people are saying we are. We get it, the mainland UK has different social tendencies and focuses compared to Northern Ireland, we're not wanting to change that. But, you know what WOULD be better for both Northern Ireland AND the UK as a whole, if we get a bunch more juicy business investment, that way we're spreading even more out away from London and helping the rest of the country to boot."

 Compel wrote:
Considering all the negative press and the fact that most of the people on the mainland haven't even heard of the DUP, it could very well be in the DUP's interests to just go. "Hey, we're not jerks as much as people are saying we are. We get it, the mainland UK has different social tendencies and focuses compared to Northern Ireland, we're not wanting to change that. But, you know what WOULD be better for both Northern Ireland AND the UK as a whole, if we get a bunch more juicy business investment, that way we're spreading even more out away from London and helping the rest of the country to boot."

Because it is extremely divisive. Why should one area of the UK get an overly proportional say on a party that is rapidly going into melt down. Why does the SW or east of England that has the same if not more MPs not get a larger say or more funding. The Tories will still push through austerity in a different way. The money to prop up DUP will have to come from somewhere. What happens if this comes from Sinn Fein supporting areas (or that is how DUP spend it?)

Also I see May still doesn't get it. In the press conference she stated

Theresa May says there's "a unity of purpose" in the UK among all people, Leave and Remain, to get on with Brexit and make a success of it.

Which makes me wonder whether she has learnt anything at all and is back to resorting to sound bites. You only have to speak to people to see that the country is just as divided as ever and that half the country would be quite happy if they canned Wrexit and half want to be done with the EU and damn the consequences (mainly for those that want to remain). It makes you wonder what ivory tower she actually lives in or why she is doing her best impression of the three monkeys.

You could quite easily say that about any and every location that ever has Government money ever spent on it.

So talks with the DUP about the future of the government are still ongoing and May pops over to France for photo ops with Macron Either the DUP talks are going so well she feels she can leave the fine print to others, or she's the political equivalent of Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's. Question is who's holding her up and waving her hands about to convince others she's still alive?

GoatboyBeta wrote:
So talks with the DUP about the future of the government are still ongoing and May pops over to France for photo ops with Macron Either the DUP talks are going so well she feels she can leave the fine print to others, or she's the political equivalent of Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's. Question is who's holding her up and waving her hands about to convince others she's still alive?

Mayeb she leaving certain areas of certain details to ministers who specialise?
Part a Tory party taking power off her?

Interesting data from YouGov. Seemingly Labour won in every employment demographic bar the reitred. Takes the wind out of the they-only-won-votes-amongst-students-and-wasters sails.

Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.

(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

*snicker*

So UKIP gets most of it's support from the non-working and the unemployed.

Interesting...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.

(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

Yup. And population density will affect it a fair bit too, especially when it comes to spending on infrastructure.

10 miles of new rail will cost the same whether it's used by 170,000 heading into Birmingham New Street or 7000 going to Cardiff Queen Street.

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.
(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

Yup. And population density will affect it a fair bit too, especially when it comes to spending on infrastructure.

10 miles of new rail will cost the same whether it's used by 170,000 heading into Birmingham New Street or 7000 going to Cardiff Queen Street.

Indeed. And this increases by orders of magnitude when you start dealing with Scottish Islands, which there are a lot of and some are awfully isolated.

nfe wrote:

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.
(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

Yup. And population density will affect it a fair bit too, especially when it comes to spending on infrastructure.

10 miles of new rail will cost the same whether it's used by 170,000 heading into Birmingham New Street or 7000 going to Cardiff Queen Street.

Indeed. And this increases by orders of magnitude when you start dealing with Scottish Islands, which there are a lot of and some are awfully isolated.

Though I wonder if volume of traffic has an effect on maintainance costs that even things out in the long run. Maybe not but I can see bigger platforms and higher capacity trains etc in cities costing significantly more than a country halt for a two carriage service.

And that London figure would be nowhere near 16% had the production capability in the rest of the UK been invested in instead of being sold out in favour of clearing banks and financial services who pay scant tax back into the economy. Now we've got cities gutted of their livelihoods and a national economy ballanced on the whims of self intrested big business. They'll naff off to wherever suits them and we'll be left with nothing to sell.

A redistribution of wealth is long overdue. Reinvestment is key.

 Knockagh wrote:

Pathetic comments. .

And people say *I* start flame wars....

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think you are being too negative, look at the positives. Arm the populace, then let them "take back control".

Give it six months and the Leave and Remain side would be shooting each other. We'd quickly devolve into a brief, but bloody, civil war.

Then whichever side is left standing gets their say on Wrexit. It solves many other problems too. The number of pensioners we'd have to support would rapidly decrease; there would no longer be a housing shortage; there wouldn't be an economy to worry about; and no one in there right mind would want to come here from any part of the world ever again, immediately solving the "immigration crisis". Sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea. All the police have to do is protect places like schools etc.

Whirlwind, I'm the one supposed to propose brutal, heartless, but ultimately necessary things that horrify our fellow posters.

[Snip] thread has moved on, thankfully.

nfe wrote:

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.
(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

Yup. And population density will affect it a fair bit too, especially when it comes to spending on infrastructure.

10 miles of new rail will cost the same whether it's used by 170,000 heading into Birmingham New Street or 7000 going to Cardiff Queen Street.

Indeed. And this increases by orders of magnitude when you start dealing with Scottish Islands, which there are a lot of and some are awfully isolated.

England has a many times higher population density and numbers than wales and Scotland.

If we add up costs on value per head and the amount of users per x amount spent.
Its obvious that some projects will always be getting priority . There looking at that in a sense of value for money/positive economic impact.

The link for that...

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

So, from that it's clear why the Tories are cutting education, the poorly educated vote Tory.

 r_squared wrote:

Spoiler:

nfe wrote:
Interesting data from YouGov. Seemingly Labour won in every employment demographic bar the reitred. Takes the wind out of the they-only-won-votes-amongst-students-and-wasters sails.

The link for that...

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

So, from that it's clear why the Tories are cutting education, the poorly educated vote Tory.

Yet another example of their "party before country" policy.

 theCrowe wrote:

nfe wrote:

 King Henry VIII wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of the reason why the "money spent per head" is less in England than the other home nations, is because England's economy is vastly larger and richer than all the rest of the UK put together. E.g the Square Mile of the City of London produces about 16% of the entire GDP of the UK. (Obviously this will decrease after Brexit.)

Thus the extra money in Scotland, Wales and NI is simply redistribution of wealth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The "regions" also get a bigger share of EU development grants than England.
(Obviously this will be reduced after Brexit.)

Yup. And population density will affect it a fair bit too, especially when it comes to spending on infrastructure.

10 miles of new rail will cost the same whether it's used by 170,000 heading into Birmingham New Street or 7000 going to Cardiff Queen Street.

Indeed. And this increases by orders of magnitude when you start dealing with Scottish Islands, which there are a lot of and some are awfully isolated.

Though I wonder if volume of traffic has an effect on maintainance costs that even things out in the long run. Maybe not but I can see bigger platforms and higher capacity trains etc in cities costing significantly more than a country halt for a two carriage service.

I'm sure it will, and that's probably the case in the highlands, just as in rural Wales, both of which have further complicated infrastructure because of their networks of mountains and valleys, but in all but one case in the islands we're talking about ferries and planes rather than railways or roads, which I suspect jump the cost-per-mile-travelled a fair whack, alongside a load of energy connectivity problems. Electricity in the Shetlands isn't just a case of rolling the national grid another mile up the road...

These days it can be offshore windmills or tidal stations. We might soon see the Shetlands exporting energy to the mainland.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
These days it can be offshore windmills or tidal stations. We might soon see the Shetlands exporting energy to the mainland.

If only folks would enthusiastically invest in it. I think Eigg is pretty much self-sufficient in power, but I'm not sure that goes for any other islands (and Eigg only has to cater for about 70 people, two shops, an a tiny school and sorta-town-hall).

Yet another failure of the Tories...

Gavin Barwell: Theresa May's new chief of staff faces questions over delayed tower block fire safety review
Mr Barwell was housing minister when the review was again delayed, fire expert confirms

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-s-new-chief-of-staff-faced-questions-on-wednesday-over-his-role-in-a-delayed-fire-safety-a7789266.html?cmpid=facebook-post

It is a disgrace.

I woke up early this morning and saw these reports of the fire on the BBC. It is very distressing to think that hundreds of people may have been trapped on the upper levels.

It's not just Barwell, dozens of Tory MPs regularly enjoy putting the brakes on any housing or safety regulation, ie those who are private landlords themselves. Profit >>> lives, you can always find more tenants.

I'm horrified by this.

Imagine you were the ex-housing minister and were now the chief of staff to a Prime Minister whose government rejected increased safety regulation and whose party controlled the council that ignored repeated complaints about the safety standards and refurbishment of a tower block whose upkeep was sold to a private firm and was involved in a catastrophic fire. That would be bad.

I hope heads roll. I fear they wont.