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.

 Ketara wrote:
Blimey guv. That was in the 1950's, the man was knighted in '72 and died in '73. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the chap in question withhold evidence even from Parliament on the matter? Somehow I doubt given that that the Queen knew or gave the nod to what happened. Bit harsh to hold it against old Brenda; you might as well lay every evil ever undertaken by a British citizen at the throne of monarchy going down that route of reasoning.

Oliver Lyttelton, 1st Viscount Chandos, and Colonial Secretary, actually briefed her on it, as she assumed the throne during this mess, and he was busy making excuses for it all in front of Parliament.


By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cornwall-42932862/brits-try-eu-migrants-vegetable-picking-jobs-in-cornwall

Agricultural labour recruitment down 35% since Brexit referendum.

The disappointing thing about this article is the way the title portrays them as EU migrant jobs which they are not. There are plenty of migrants that do highly skilled jobs and these sort of articles reinforce the belief that they are only here to do the menial jobs. Instead they could have titled it "Can the local employment market recruit enough people to support an agricultural economy"

Radio 4 ran an interesting piece this morning on ceramics companies in the Potteries area of the midlands. (Stoke and so on.) They are doing quite well making specialist whisky bottles and stuff, but they are worried about the future.

The TL/DR is that they are reliant on EU workers because they can't find enough local staff. EU staff recruitment is down since the referendum, so the companies are investing in robots to replace them.

Their other worry is that a trade deal with China will open the floodgates to super-cheap imports.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
...By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?

A fully loaded sentence designed to provoke anger, not debate.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Oliver Lyttelton, 1st Viscount Chandos, and Colonial Secretary, actually briefed her on it, as she assumed the throne during this mess, and he was busy making excuses for it all in front of Parliament.

I see. I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do. I'd appreciate seeing it though. Despite a few googles, I can't seem to uncover it...

By the standards set at Nuremberg, her Majesty is culpable for the actions of the Colonial Secretary and his underlings. Or will you suggest that it was unfair of us to hang Nazis for far less?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by shattering Godwin's law. Neutral, unbiased information is what I'm after here. I couldn't care less about legal precedents for whatever right now; I'm trying to ascertain if Her Majesty actually did what you said she did, on account of the fact that it's new to me. Stick to that, old fruit.

Yet another example of government ass-hattery.

[ulr=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/university-students-graduate-careers-academic-degrees-income-jobs-recruitment-tory-mp-robert-halfon-a8194786.html]University students receive 'paltry returns' for their academic degrees, says Tory MP[/url]

That's because over the past 30 years, British higher education strategy has been:

1. Close all the polytechics, which used to provide excellent vocational education, and turn them into second- or third-rate academic universities.
2. Encourage 50%+ of teeneagers to get an academic degree at one of these new universities.
3. Charge them £9,000 a year for the service.
4. Not to have an industrial strategy, and leave everything to the private sector.

The fact is, anyone who gets a good degree from a good university will be all right.

Not even that, the Tories are obsessed with academic subjects at the secondary school level, as well.

Just look at the changes they brought in to the curriculum for examples of that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Not even that, the Tories are obsessed with academic subjects at the secondary school level, as well.

Just look at the changes they brought in to the curriculum for examples of that.

I'll be honest, I think Blair is primarily responsible for the current model of the education sector. The Tories took the first steps which made it possible by abolishing the official difference between polys and unis, but the subsequent Labour administration was responsible for the calcification and tone that was set subsequently.

That said, I always think there comes a time when the following administration has had the opportunity to make changes, and didn't, so they also share culpability.

Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.

I mean, if I set out to try and figure out the most efficient way of structuring the NHS (to seize upon an example), I'd take a solid five or so years, a team of hundreds of academics/ doctors. and a vast amount of data before I even began to give tentative conclusions about the best way to do it.

Our politicians meanwhile; write their plan on the back of a cigarette packet before getting into power (in between lobbying/sucking up/political maneuvering), then run it past a handful of civil servants and consultants, and put it into play. That plan will be focused purely upon mitigating whatever people are complaining most loudly about in line with whatever ideological strain they're currently championing.

I mean, is it any wonder stuff goes to pot on a regular basis? There's no long term planning, no real competence/expertise in the short term version, and no motivation for changing that.

 Ketara wrote:
Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.

And I will continue to argue that this is why the House of Lords is important. For all their failures they are not beholden to a fickle electorate, the next vote, or what the papers say tomorrow.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Therein, I think, lies the problem of our system of government. It's dedicated to short termist firefighting by power hungry non-entities who have very little in the way of actual skills. There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.

And I will continue to argue that this is why the House of Lords is important. For all their failures they are not beholden to a fickle electorate, the next vote, or what the papers say tomorrow.

But that cuts both ways. See the attempts to ban fox hunting as an example.

"UK govt says customs plan is for “highly streamlined technology based” solution, as per August paper.

Do this exist, or just theory?

No 10: “Work is ongoing.”

What does UK do next if solution as hoped doesn’t exist?

No 10: “I’m not going to have a hypothetical discussion.”"

...errrmmmm ..???

Of course there isn't a highly streamlined tech based solution.

It probably can be built, but given the UK government's record on big computer projects, it won't be ready until 2024 and will cost at least three times the budget.

Also the EU will very naturally insist we pay for them to install and operate it on their side, because it's only going to be needed for our convenience.

And it won't cover services, which are a lot more than half our exports.

We lack the physical space at a lot of our ports to be able to implement a lot of schemes.

https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/960579969989660672

Preparedness for #Brexit is key. All competent authorities and market operators have to prepare now. When the UK leaves the single market, the financial passport is gone.

something something project fear etc etc

Hope we're able to make a LOT of jam.

I'm sure they'll come up with something that satisfies the strictures of the Good Friday agreement and secures the border to the satisfaction of the rest of the EU. Should be a piece of piss.

One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.

Negotiation 101...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.

That's a new and startling tactic. Where do you get that idea from?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what will happen, since conceding seems to be all they can do.
I'm convinced May is still stalling trying to find a way to save her career.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do.

Ok... I'm a bit surprised, but maybe you're unaware of the Order of the Garter and just HOW difficult it is to get in. This is not just a run of the mill common knighting. A member of the Order is considered above the common knights and baronets of England.. First ONLY the monarch may invest a knight of the order. The British Government returned that right to the monarch in 1946, and has no say in who's selected. There are only 24 'Knights Companion' the only position available to someone not either a foreign monarch (Stranger Knights) or a member of the Royal House (Royal Knights, created as George III had too many sons and didn't want them counting toward the limit of 24). With only 24 positions, you may be sure that Her Majesty could tell you the color of your underthings that day if you were being considered for the Accolade.

At the moment there are, IIRC three open positions.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm assuming you can provide evidence that Her Majesty was fully aware of mass murder/torture, and independently decided (i.e. it wasn't the decision of the government)'screw it, let's go and knight the man'? I mean, to be making such provocative statements, you must do.

Ok... I'm a bit surprised, but maybe you're unaware of the Order of the Garter and just HOW difficult it is to get in. This is not just a run of the mill common knighting. A member of the Order is considered above the common knights and baronets of England.. First ONLY the monarch may invest a knight of the order. The British Government returned that right to the monarch in 1946, and has no say in who's selected. There are only 24 'Knights Companion' the only position available to someone not either a foreign monarch (Stranger Knights) or a member of the Royal House (Royal Knights, created as George III had too many sons and didn't want them counting toward the limit of 24). With only 24 positions, you may be sure that Her Majesty could tell you the color of your underthings that day if you were being considered for the Accolade.

At the moment there are, IIRC three open positions.

So....should I take that as 'I can't provide any evidence that she was explicitly actually aware of precisely what occurred there, but I'm damn well sure going to act like I can through vague insinuation!'

I mean, since you did just neatly sidestep the actual question being asked in order to focus upon what is a (really quite) peripheral piece of information. However restricted the knighthoods may or may not be, the Queen is just as susceptible to political suggestion as anyone else is, and it's really all quite by the by as to the actual question asked (namely, did this chap very explicitly order the mass tortures you mention, and if so, whether she was fully aware of that fact).

Thing is, I'm really quite happy to learn something here, I've no personal attachment to or endorsement in the Queen being the Second Coming. Plenty of Royals have been bastards over the years. But just tossing off these vague provocatively worded statements like you keep doing really isn't doing your case any favours as to believability.

He's talking gak, the definition of Trolling. Throw in an outrageous statement to inflame and back it up with nothing, sit back and watch people argue over feth all. Ignore him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42955553

She has a point. The Conservative party and the country have somehow found themselves at the beck and call to a handful of ideological extremists.
I've often said that what the conservative party needs is a split. For too long it has struggled trying to marry up the right under one umbrella, and we're now paying the price for their hubris.
Bring back UKIP.

I can’t help feeling that large parts of the Conservative and labour parties are actually better described as being liberals and would be more at home in the Lib Dem’s, but for the fact that they would never get elected if they were Lib Dem’s. The shift to the middle that happens in the late 80s and 90s saw more Center left and Center right drawn in to the big two, but the old left and right are now asserting themselves, hence both parties are ripping themselves apart. I don’t think they should join the Lib Dem’s, as no one would take them seriously, but I do think there would be value in the Center leaning members of both parties looking to form a new party.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One line of thinking is that May will play tough until the last minute, then cave in to whatever deal the EU offers us.

That's a new and startling tactic. Where do you get that idea from?

From reading the papers, but the resoning they give is pretty sound.

May's red lines and the deal she is aiming for are fundamentally incompatible, so they can't be achieved.
Eventually the EU will set its final terms for a deal, which will be a softish brexit of some kind, incompatible with the red lines.
The UK can either accept that or crash out in flames.
Everyone except the super hard brexiteers knows that to crash out in flames will be at best a major problem.
Therefore May will accept the final EU terms.

Push does finally appear to be approaching shove in the Tory Party.

They've been kicking their divisions on Europe down the road ever since we joined, but we've now got Mogg repeatedly criticising the PM, Chancellor and entire Civil Service, Soubry saying she'll leave if Mogg / Johnson etc take over, and May in the middle of it now incapable of anything other than parroting whichever 2 phrases they trained her to parrot most recently. A leadership contest at the same time as Brexit is going to be all sorts of giggles, should it come to pass.

 Darkjim wrote:
Push does finally appear to be approaching shove in the Tory Party.

They've been kicking their divisions on Europe down the road ever since we joined, but we've now got Mogg repeatedly criticising the PM, Chancellor and entire Civil Service, Soubry saying she'll leave if Mogg / Johnson etc take over, and May in the middle of it now incapable of anything other than parroting whichever 2 phrases they trained her to parrot most recently. A leadership contest at the same time as Brexit is going to be all sorts of giggles, should it come to pass.

Soubry is as much a Tory as I am, and I've despised that party for almost 40 years getting. She's a Blairite to the core. A lot of the Tory problems stem from the fact that there are very few Conservatives in the Conservative party.

That's just your statement.

Soubry actually is a member of the Conservative Party, she actually was selected by the Conservative Party to stand in their interest at an actual general election in which she actually was elected.

Presumably not by Labour Party members.

The problems stem from the fact that the Conservative Party is, or has usually been, a broad church.

Soubry may be on the left of the party, but so are a lot of other people. Then there are some hard right members of the party, and a spectrum in between.

The Conservative mantra has always been to paper over the gaps between these groups, in order to form a solid looking right wing part which reliably wins elections.

UKIP started to break up that happy accomodation by threatening to rob away the hard right support from the Tories. Cameron's referendum was intended to squash UKIP, but when lost it unleashed demons of passion which could not be controlled.

Today's Conservative Party is in a state of barely suppressed civil war over the issue of Brexit. Their key problem is that it simply is not possible to achieve a compromise between the hard Brexiteers and everyone else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's just your statement.

Soubry actually is a member of the Conservative Party, she actually was selected by the Conservative Party to stand in their interest at an actual general election in which she actually was elected.

Presumably not by Labour Party members.

The problems stem from the fact that the Conservative Party is, or has usually been, a broad church.

Soubry may be on the left of the party, but so are a lot of other people. Then there are some hard right members of the party, and a spectrum in between.

The Conservative mantra has always been to paper over the gaps between these groups, in order to form a solid looking right wing part which reliably wins elections.

UKIP started to break up that happy accomodation by threatening to rob away the hard right support from the Tories. Cameron's referendum was intended to squash UKIP, but when lost it unleashed demons of passion which could not be controlled.

Today's Conservative Party is in a state of barely suppressed civil war over the issue of Brexit. Their key problem is that it simply is not possible to achieve a compromise between the hard Brexiteers and everyone else.

I could join the Conservative party right now, but as the Iron Duke once said, being born in a stable does not make a man a horse...

Blue Blairites selecting another blue Blairite does not make one a Conservative.

I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I could join the Conservative party right now, but as the Iron Duke once said, being born in a stable does not make a man a horse...
... ...

That isn't the point I refuted.

 Ketara wrote:
There's a reason 'Economics for Idiots' is officially one of the most borrowed books in Westminster Library.

Because parliament is full of idiots?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I don’t think they should join the Lib Dem’s, as no one would take them seriously, but I do think there would be value in the Center leaning members of both parties looking to form a new party.

Perhaps we should ask Macron whether he will open up a branch of En Marche in the UK? There might be consistency then between the two countries. Can you be the leader of two countries at once?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Blue Blairites selecting another blue Blairite does not make one a Conservative.

I've yet to hear a single Conservative viewpoint being uttered from Soubry.

A name should not dictate what a party is or wants to be. Just because what a party was in the past does not mean it should define its future. If the Conservative party all became Marxists they are still the Conservative party. If we wanted parties that were constrained by past ideologies then we may as well as just rename everything to being under 5 parties:- far right nut jobs; centre right, capital orientated; centre, no particular preference in ideology; centre left, social orientated; far left nut jobs.