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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.

I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.

I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....

I remember that too. I remember being told that the money wasted on that, plus all the other issues surrounding it, wasn’t worth worrying about.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

As I understand it, the government has done a 180 on the fire proof cladding issue, and it's expected to cost £400 million.

I think you could insert any other requirement in here rather than focus on one. It could have been spent on the homeless for example which would have been a much better and wiser spend of the money rather than using it to partially include a forced relocation of suchnpeiple so they can be then ignored and forgotten about.

I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....

The two parliaments is a waste but I don't think it's much in terms of budget percentage.

I do love that video where Barnier goes off on one about "the biggest waste of EU funds is Mr Farages salary due to 3 consecutive years of non attendance at the fisheries commission.

I don’t think Farages salary quite matches the two parliaments bs, which is quite extensive. Nice attempt at deflection though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm a Royalist in that I want the Monarchy as an institution to be retained...but I couldn't give a toss about this Wedding and haven't watched anything on TV besides seeing it on the telly as I passed through the Kitchen to get a drink. I saw George Clooney and his wife in that yellow dress and that was it.

Is there anyone else here like me? Royalists who support the continued existence of the Monarchy but who doesn't give a toss about all the hype, pomp and circumstance?

Do you mean you would like a Scandi style monarchy, there in a constitutional way, and low key? The kind of king who cycles from the palace to open parliament, whose children have regular jobs as airline pilots and so on.

No. Issues with the misconduct of individual members of the Monarchy aside, I'm perfectly happy with the Monarchy as an Institution in it's current form. I don't want to replace our Head of State with an elected President, it would just become politicised and hyper-partisan like the American Presidency; and it wouldn't save money in the long term. In fact it would probably be much more expensive.

The United Kingdom has been the longest enduring, most stable Nation State in the world for 300 years. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I don’t think Farages salary quite matches the two parliaments bs, which is quite extensive. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Over the course of the weekend, some 2,500 plastic trunks will be loaded on to five lorries and driven almost 300 miles from Brussels to Strasbourg.

On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will then make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense.

A few thousand more will go to Strasbourg by other means, as the European Parliament switches from Brussels, its permanent base, to its “official” home in northern France.

That can't be good for the environment. They expect the Nations and Peoples of Europe to go green (often at great expense), whilst shuttling a fleet of lorries, cars and trains between Brussels and Strasbourg every month.

Hypocrites.

 Mr Morden wrote:


I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....

Well if want to bring "whataboutism" into the argument then I'll play. So I raise you £2-3bn extra the UK Parliament is going to waste because a few don't want to retire anywhere other than the Houses of Parliament. And as they turned down all solutions the costs will go up

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33184160

That's about 15-25 EU decamping between two locations. £200m would easily build you a suitable facility in the centre of the U.K. That would both make it more convenient and have better technology to provide services to its constituents. And this ignores the reduction in requirement for second homes, cheaper rental rates etc etc. From this perspective the specified EU waste (which it is, but then it is a democracy which is missed in this point) is minuscule compared to what our own parliament is wasting on a similar issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

Some see royalty as huge privilege but I think most will view it as a curse. Like as Megan knows it is essentially over; she'll never act again and will spend most of her time doing pretty boring official stuff. I honestly don't envy any of them.

You could however had these people pay for all their own costs rather than at the tax payers expense. Some people might have earned a little extra, but the majority will go those that own the companies and escape the larger tax demands.

Also the above is why I don't see the marriage lasting beyond about 10 years. Unlike the other wedding where the parents effectively groomed a princess and did all they could for her to be one in this case I think after the gloss wears off there will be more and more yearning to be free.

She won't step out of line. Look what they did to Diana.

Nobody walks out on the Royal family

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I don’t think Farages salary quite matches the two parliaments bs, which is quite extensive. Nice attempt at deflection though.

The EU get a something from running 2 parliaments though. Garage largely draws a salary without contributing.

Not that I agree with the dual parliament thing.

Grace Kelly was a bigger star and packed in acting and age ten years younger than Meghan has, yet it worked for thirty years until her death.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
She won't step out of line. Look what they did to Diana.

Nobody walks out on the Royal family

Diana was future queen & wife and mother to future kings. Not that I think anything actually happened beyond an accident, and not that that would justify it if it had.

As big a spectacle as this was (apparently, I didn't watch it) I think it's probably the start of Harry moving out of the Royal limelight. In the mid 80s the upcoming nucleus of British Royalty was Charles, Diana, William and Harry; from a very young age all the focus was on "William and Harry" as a pair, which redoubled in '97.

Now we're a full generation on and all the attention will now be going to William & Kate, and whatever the kids are called, as they're the new nucleus of the Royals. Harry and Meghan will start to move into the sort of exposure and roles enjoyed by Andrew, Edward & Anne etc. They probably can't wait.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Grace Kelly was a bigger star and packed in acting and age ten years younger than Meghan has, yet it worked for thirty years until her death.

The princess of Monaco is much less restricted by media vultures and that was also the 1950s which is hardly a comparable time in both society and the the perception of women in society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
She won't step out of line. Look what they did to Diana.

Nobody walks out on the Royal family

You know it was only to hide the fact that William and Harry weren't related to Charles right....?

Seriously it was drunk driver, a woman who couldn't get out of a marriage she despised, in love with another man, and constantly hounded by the press limited in her own free speech and actions she could undertake. It was likely inevitable, or if not that suicide.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


I seem to remember querrying Eu waste on stuff like two parliments that no one but the French Government wants and being told that level of money was meaningless.....

Well if want to bring "whataboutism" into the argument then I'll play. So I raise you £2-3bn extra the UK Parliament is going to waste because a few don't want to retire anywhere other than the Houses of Parliament. And as they turned down all solutions the costs will go up
.

You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.

Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/21/support-for-brexit-falls-sharply-in-northern-ireland[Support for Brexit falls sharply in Northern Ireland.[/url]

The detailed picture is more nuanced, with varying attitudes of Protestants and Catholics to various issues.

Here's a little more detail about the results of that opinion poll in Northern Ireland (link to pdf). (It was been published by Queen's University Belfast and UK in a Changing Europe today.) The results show a significant fall in support for Leave. Northern Ireland voted 54% Remain to 46% Leave. Remain support has now risen to 69%.

They also show a significant risk of violent protests if there are border check either between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Peaceful protests in either scenario seem certain.

However, the people of Northern Ireland still want to remain British.

So, did everybody enjoy the Royal wedding?

Were my fellow dakka members hosting their own street parties and a knees up?

Personally, I thought the BBC coverage was the worst sycophantic and nauseating coverage I've heard since the last Royal wedding.

And people have to pay TV licence money for that!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Grace Kelly was a bigger star and packed in acting and age ten years younger than Meghan has, yet it worked for thirty years until her death.

The princess of Monaco is much less restricted by media vultures and that was also the 1950s which is hardly a comparable time in both society and the the perception of women in society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
She won't step out of line. Look what they did to Diana.

Nobody walks out on the Royal family

You know it was only to hide the fact that William and Harry weren't related to Charles right....?

Seriously it was drunk driver, a woman who couldn't get out of a marriage she despised, in love with another man, and constantly hounded by the press limited in her own free speech and actions she could undertake. It was likely inevitable, or if not that suicide.

I'm no member of the tin foil hat brigade, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions about Diana's death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
She won't step out of line. Look what they did to Diana.

Nobody walks out on the Royal family

Diana was future queen & wife and mother to future kings. Not that I think anything actually happened beyond an accident, and not that that would justify it if it had.

As big a spectacle as this was (apparently, I didn't watch it) I think it's probably the start of Harry moving out of the Royal limelight. In the mid 80s the upcoming nucleus of British Royalty was Charles, Diana, William and Harry; from a very young age all the focus was on "William and Harry" as a pair, which redoubled in '97.

Now we're a full generation on and all the attention will now be going to William & Kate, and whatever the kids are called, as they're the new nucleus of the Royals. Harry and Meghan will start to move into the sort of exposure and roles enjoyed by Andrew, Edward & Anne etc. They probably can't wait.

Andrew and Edward? You mean Harry will be sitting on his rear for most of his life or hanging about golf courses, and my taxes will have to pay for it?

 Mr Morden wrote:


You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.

Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.

Which is "whataboutism". The issue is whether the money spent by the state on the wedding could be better spent and should have been paid for by the families involved. That they are no different from any other individual and that the state doesn't pay for part of anyone else's wedding.

Bring up the EU was a nakedly blunt attempt to to try and raw attention away from the discussion (and insert a spin an unsubtle attack on the EU to favour your own views) and compare it it to something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. That is simply "whataboutism" and was irrelevant to the point being discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, did everybody enjoy the Royal wedding?

Personally, I thought the BBC coverage was the worst sycophantic and nauseating coverage I've heard since the last Royal wedding.

I think this might about some up my views of the coverage

I'm no member of the tin foil hat brigade, but there's still a lot of unanswered questions about Diana's death.

In the way they put her in an impossibly trapped position, yes, but not the actual death itself.

To the astonishment of practically no one :

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tories-nandos-discounts-new-members/

Nandos not that enthused about being seen as Tory supporting -- or indeed being affiliated with any political party.


Which is a reasonable, sensible even, enough position.

But does show that the people we're having represent us in the Brexit talks and future trade deals cannot make a deal with a fething chicken restaurant chain.

Bodes well eh ?

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/998542781042880513




.. hooray : Permanent Opeation Stack it is then.





good time to buy shares in cone manufacturers.

Also a good opportunity to set up a mobile kebab van.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


You started the comparisons with how money could be spent - I am just pointing out that when EU wastage was raised previosuly its all good and wonderful ot at worst not worth bothering about.

Bit like when the US, France and UK bombed Syria (which was pointless waste of money IMO) only the UK are Trumps lapdog.

Which is "whataboutism". The issue is whether the money spent by the state on the wedding could be better spent and should have been paid for by the families involved. That they are no different from any other individual and that the state doesn't pay for part of anyone else's wedding.

Bring up the EU was a nakedly blunt attempt to to try and raw attention away from the discussion (and insert a spin an unsubtle attack on the EU to favour your own views) and compare it it to something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. That is simply "whataboutism" and was irrelevant to the point being discussed.

.

You do realise that your post was an exact example of your own prejudices - similar to this disdainful "oh you just hate Europe" whilst ignoring any aspect of the statement in order to broadcast your own dogma.

Its hilarious that saying "oh the money could have been spent better" but only in this specific area whilst previously - "nope waste here is fine" its too small an amount to matter.

Money can always be spent differently - just because your bile was overflowing up at that point against anyone who enjoyed watching the wedding does not mean that it was wrong to spend it.

For clarity

person 1 says "Grrrr this wedding was an example of a waste of public money, anyone who watches it is stupid how can they waste all this money."
person 2 says "I think having two Eu parliment buildings is a waste of public money but you said no one should bother about such piffling small sums of money "
Person 1 says - "Whats that got to do wth anything"
Person 2 says - "Er its the same ?"
Person 1 says "You just hate the EU"

Person 2 - "Sigh"

With the Grenfell inquiry opening and the anniversary of the Manchester arena bomb the news cycle has been damn grim today. So its nice of Ken to provide something a bit more cheerful http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44196298. Not that leaving the Labour party will stop him from opening his gob and letting the stupid out whenever some one puts a mic in his face.

Will anything actually be done about the corrupt bosses of Carillion and the accountants that assisted?

Of course not.

That’s not how privatisation works.

They rake it in, send the company belly up, then the tax payer foots the bill. Again.

How nice of Labour to let him leave on his own terms instead of expelling him themselves.

They could have made a public statement on this anti-Semitism scandal had they chosen to expel him from the party themselves, at a much earlier date.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They could have made a public statement on this anti-Semitism scandal had they chosen to expel him from the party themselves, at a much earlier date.

And they wonder why that accusation won’t go away.

 Mr Morden wrote:

You do realise that your post was an exact example of your own prejudices - similar to this disdainful "oh you just hate Europe" whilst ignoring any aspect of the statement in order to broadcast your own dogma.

Its hilarious that saying "oh the money could have been spent better" but only in this specific area whilst previously - "nope waste here is fine" its too small an amount to matter.

Benefit sanctions found to be ineffective and damaging

It turns out that punishing people into getting jobs doesn't work and has unintended negative consequences such as pushing them into "survival crime" instead.

I spent a year as a client of the Jobcentre system, and a year as an avoider, and I can confirm the following:

jobcentres were more focused on enforcing benefit rules rather than helping people get jobs, the study found.

some cases elected to sign off, foregoing rent support and tax credits, to avoid what they saw as constant, petty harassment from jobcentre staff.

OTOH the course I was sent on for job searching and so on was actually very good. It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. It would definitely have benefitted people without that experience, though.

much of the mandatory job search, training and employment support offered by Jobcentre Plus and external providers is too generic, of poor quality and largely ineffective in enabling people to enter and sustain paid work

It's also a huge waste of time for employers, having to deal with applications and interviews with people who are unsuitable or don't want the job but just have a quota to meet.

Making the system so horrible people leave the 'unemployed group', saving money (on paper) and making the figures look good, sounds like a tory wet dream, though.

Herzlos wrote:
It's also a huge waste of time for employers, having to deal with applications and interviews with people who are unsuitable or don't want the job but just have a quota to meet.

Making the system so horrible people leave the 'unemployed group', saving money (on paper) and making the figures look good, sounds like a tory wet dream, though.

The Tories don't care about the effects on these people. They only care that I can promote their own twisted version of the figures to the Daily Fail and Scum newspaper which will be lapped up by the readers. They just hope they aren't in control when a Grenfell or Windrush saga arises because they know they will be shown the door for someone new and the cycle repeats.

Just to note that I thought the Royal Wedding was a lovely thing to happen, despite my total disinterest in watching it. [LGT and all. Much more interesting]
And that every study I've seen done on the Royal Family suggests A) they bring in more money than they cost, B) Getting rid of them would require several replacements which would ultimately cost more and havn't exactly performed terribly well in the other countries that have them.
and C) Having a Royal family has never actually done the UK any harm in the modern Era. It's never damaged our democracy, done anything spectularly unpopular or hurt or international reputation.


Seems to be a case of, 'It ain't broke, but we want to fix it with something that's almost certainly worse and more expensive because 'Muh Principles', along with vague insinuations of death threats about 'Hanging' or 'Deporting', people who are effectively lifelong civil servants.'

Even some of the posts in this thread about it have bordered on the offensive/disgusting side of things.

Well said.