British Politics Thread.

[Mr Mystery]

It's depressing, isn't.

I get that Corbyn isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's his message that's important - there are options other than Neo-Liberalism.

There's little wrong with practical socialism. NHS. Schools. Both strong forms of socialism we need to fund appropriately. Look after the people. That's what a Government should be there for, not just lining the pockets of the rich by asset stripping.

[Kirsten]

the tories since the election seem determined to act like the worst party stereotypes. it does make me genuinely wonder if the Lib Dems did more in the coalition than anyone ever gave the credit for. the moment they were gone, the tories went full Sith.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I have noticed a really big change in the attitude of the Tories pre and post election, and maybe the Lib Dems were a controlling measure we never really noticed beforehand. I want Corbyn to get in purely because the guy actually seems to have a moral compass, and I really want someone who fights the corner for the left wing, because it's dying a death here in the UK. I really don't want us having the, "fifty shades of right wing c**t," system America has. Or should I say two shades?

Anyway, funny pic:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s36/coffeegrunt/Miscellanious/12342393_992888944100928_6002859300063144135_n.jpg

[Psychosplodge]

Yup.

I'm looking forward to future By-Elections, as I'd love to see Labour gain seats. Not just because I'm a regular Labour voter, but because I want to see the look on Call Me Dave's face when he realise that despite the efforts of his minions in the press to demonise Jeremy Corbyn, he may have greater support than they'd care to admit.

Unless they've just took this off someone else the result is pretty meaningless.

[Mr Mystery]

PM keeps referring to Labour as unelectable.

In their first By-Election, Labour increased their percentage of the vote.

That's not what I'd call meaningless. Not as significant as taking over a seat, no. But a stronger showing in the polls, even in a safe seat really doesn't support Call Me Dave's claims....

[Path Walker]

If you read the press about the campaign(which i did as a friend is a Labout Party Activist in the area and worked on the campaign) apparently UKIP were making massive gains and were expected to massively erode support for Labour in the area purely because everyone hated Corbyn.

Instead, all the well-bred Cheshire countryside yah-yahs who came in to the area to campaign for UKIP just managed to pick up the voters leaving the Tories in droves.

UKIP angry that voters could have a postal vote was the icing on the cake.

[Psychosplodge]

But again, like in most northern industrial towns and cities if you stick a red rosette on it it's getting elected. Labour voters couldn't stand Blair, they still re-elected him, because they hate the tories, and laugh at the libdems.

[Mr Mystery]

It's still not the result Call Me Dave would have us believe.

UKIP getting mashed in the polls is always funny, their inevitable reaction even more so.

But to see an allegedly unpopular Leader with their first victory under their belt by way of an increased majority speaks volumes, safe seat or not.

Corbyn seems to appeal to an underserved part of the electorate, and more power to him for that. Literally more power. I think he'd make a superb PM (other opinions are just as valid)

[Denzark]

I have noticed a really big change in the attitude of the Tories pre and post election, and maybe the Lib Dems were a controlling measure we never really noticed beforehand. I want Corbyn to get in purely because the guy actually seems to have a moral compass, and I really want someone who fights the corner for the left wing, because it's dying a death here in the UK. I really don't want us having the, "fifty shades of right wing c**t," system America has. Or should I say two shades?

Anyway, funny pic:
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s36/coffeegrunt/Miscellanious/12342393_992888944100928_6002859300063144135_n.jpg

Is it worth pointing out to the illiterate muppet who generated this, that bins are done by whoever their council tax goes to, not central government? I wonder what colour their local council is, blue or red, hmmm?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yup, definitely worth killing a joke over.

[Wolfshade]

Also what's a "desease"?

[Haighus]

Also what's a "desease"?
I think it is referring to 'disease', but I keep reading it as 'deceased' which makes the whole airstrike campaign especially pointless if true.

[Wolfshade]

I think it is referring to 'disease', but I keep reading it as 'deceased' which makes the whole airstrike campaign especially pointless if true.

I am reliably informed it is derived from desire/long for

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Could be worse, there's just been a 'block' on a bill that "would prevent known snd suspected terrorists from legally buying guns" in Yankee land. I'm not pro-gun anyway, but seriously?
Meanwhile, back home;
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/07/none-of-the-seven-foiled-_n_8741598.html

[Kirsten]

they do love their guns, when they introduced the three day check for gun purchases they also put in a loophole that if the FBI didn't return the check within three days, usually because they wanted to investigate the applicant further, then you get the gun regardless of whether you would have passed or not. so if you are suspect, and thus subject to greater scrutiny, you in fact will get the gun because of the time lapse. what a marvellous system. thousands of guns a year go to people who would otherwise be refused without that three day stipulation.

[Psychosplodge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35281203

So that's four resignations? And one sacking for blunt straight talking politics?

[Mr Mystery]

Those resigning need to get over themselves.

The Party has spoken, and elected its new leader with a solid majority.

Don't like it? Tough. Welcome to democracy.

[Psychosplodge]

Is it the best idea to allow the party members to actually choose the leader though? by definition the most likely to vote are those the most radical, but the party had most electoral success occupying the centre ground not the left.
We need a strong credible opposition to keep cameron in check. While they carry on like this he'll just do what he wants.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd say remaining Diet-Tory was their biggest fault.

There's millions of the electorate who don't vote. At all.

Whilst it would be extremely far-fetched to claim they're all fellow lefties like myself, a decent proportion will be those who didn't previously feel any of the parties offered what they want to see. Now, they do.

Pollsters reckoned Labour would take a kicking at their first by-election since Corbyn became Leader. The opposite happened. They cemented their control of that seat.

And the amount of vitriol being poured on Corbyn in the media clearly shows somebody, somewhere has an exceptionally squeaky bum about his chances of becoming PM, and what that might entail for say, an antipodean media magnate who's entire business model runs on getting politicians into his pocket, and who didn't see Corbyn coming....

[Psychosplodge]

You're right there is. But can he convince enough of those to come out and vote to offset those that won't vote for him?

The pollsters are London based though and don't understand northern industrial towns in the slightest.

As I said when he was elected, they had diehard labour supporters stopped in the street on local radio who are going to not vote rather than vote for him. Now most of them round her probably have 10k majorities. But I doubt that's the same everywhere.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Thing with the vote for Corbyn was that the average person could vote for him as well. Labour have a website where you pay a small fee and may vote for their party leader, as they aim to represent the people, the people may have a hand in choosing the leader.

On the one hand, if this goes far enough you have the people electing someone they like, who may not necessarily be the right person for the job. They may also outweigh a very negative response from the party members themselves resulting in a party leader getting elected but being hated by the party itself.

On the other, I don't want us to keep drifting right in politics, because then we'll end up like America, and that'll be pretty rubbish. Imagine having their kind of debate over whether to even have an NHS.

[Psychosplodge]

On the other, I don't want us to keep drifting right in politics, because then we'll end up like America, and that'll be pretty rubbish. Imagine having their kind of debate over whether to even have an NHS.

That's a terrifying thought, and why we need someone to look like credible opposition.

The thing is I think the floating voters in the centre are more likely to vote than the currently may be left leaning(but who knows?) non voters.

[Wolfshade]

It is curious, you have a man who leads the party has a view opposite to the parties views and then reshuffle comes and people who hold the party line get pushed to back benchers. Appoint someone to run a commission with a view contrary to the parties view, hmmm. No wonder some people find it unconscionable.

[Mr Mystery]

According to a Grauniad survery (so pinch of salt please), Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party has seen a surge in grassroots support - up to a 500% increase in new members in some constituencies.

As I've said oodles of times before, whether one appreciates Corbyn or not (I do, myself) the man is a power for change in British Politics. It's nice to have an alternative to the neo-liberal but the economy message that we've had throughout my entire lifetime.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes but that's also a completely meaningless number.
If there's a 500% increase in a tory heartland it might be 200 people or 20 people. Not going to effect the fptp result.
If its 500% in a labour heartland, they already hold it, so no bloody difference.
Rather than all this % bull the papers should get out in the swing seats and get some real numbers.

They're all loving the drama and the headlines though instead.

[Mr Mystery]

I did say pinch of salt :p

Apparently, it was a survey of 100 constituencies (probs should have mentioned that), so may include a mix of everything. Safe, Marginal and Ribbon on a Hat Stand Opposition.

Article itself is here (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/13/revealed-how-jeremy-corbyn-has-reshaped-the-labour-party)

[Psychosplodge]

I did say pinch of salt :p


Yeah I know. It just doesn't really show anything.

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting. But there's potentially 200k missing labour supporters from 2003 anyway.
And the bath and colchester examples fit perfectly for scenario 1.

This is all going to come down to time. Plus whether he can survive the internal PLP struggles to get to an election.

[Mr Mystery]

That's true of any political leader.

There's knives aimed at Cameron's back - always has been, and potentially now more-so than ever as he's said any EU Referendum won't see him step down.

And frankly, nor should it. He's their elected leader - so just hush your gums until you start not winning anymore.

As ever, the trouble with politics is the politicians. Horrible breed them, far too often in it entirely for themselves.

[Psychosplodge]

Cameron tried to dodge the knives by setting up an expected step down date didn't he? So Boris and George are busy scowling at each other instead...

[Mr Mystery]

Never sure if that's a particularly good idea.

Pros - date is more or less set, so people are less likely to be sneaky, and out to undermine you personally - this helps with party unity to some degree

Cons - Your would-be successors are going to focus less on Party issues and more on self-aggrandisement, dividing your party more than is absolutely necessary.

I guess it all hinges on just how unpleasant your team mates are.

For my money, I wouldn't want Boris or George in charge. Boris is too slippery - his buffoon mask is hiding something unpleasant I suspect. And George? Far as I'm concerned he's utterly incompetent except when it comes to spin (what with Tory borrowing being far higher than Labour's last tally)

[Psychosplodge]

You can't trust any of them. Literally any of them. They're all politicians.

[Mr Mystery]

I question the morality of anyone who has made Politics their entire career - especially if they're from a family of politicians.

I mean, there are those who stick by their principals (Robin Cook for instance who stood down entirely in opposition to the Iraq war) but they're very few and far between.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

The whole lot of them are sociopathic, tax scrounging, psychotic criminals in my mind. I have a special dislike of IDS though.

[Mr Mystery]

He is spectacularly unpleasant.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

He is spectacularly unpleasant.

The arch nemesis of all disabled/mentally ill people as far as I am concerned. It's funny how they are like living parodies of comicbook/tv/cartoon villains too, I mean Cameron and his ilk really do look like they came out of a Lupin the third episode. Not sure whether I should laugh or cry at times. Perhaps a bit of both?

[Denzark]

Boris is too slippery - his buffoon mask is hiding something unpleasant I suspect.)

MM - apart from not judging a book by its cover - give Boris some credit. London like most metropolitan areas, has large tranches of left leaning people with supposed social consciences and an aversion to big business, conservatism and will actually not vote conservative on principle because it is the antithesis of 'cool'. All those hipsters and Islington Champagne socialists. And Boris managed to get people to vote for him! OK people are as sick of striking commie tube drivers in Londinium as can be, but that can't have been the sole issue keeping Red Ken back in his Tower Hamlets Kremlin.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh Boris is an effective Mayor. No doubting that.

But the constant buffoonery (whilst highly entertaining) has me very concerned about what he might do once he's climbed to the top of the tower of power.

It could well be that he is every bit as competent and even handed a PM as a Mayor....but I don't want to take that risk, because when the mask slips we might all be in for a shock.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g

God damn. Can you imagine having this kind of circus as our politics?

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah it uses the go compare theme, regardless of policies I wouldn't vote for anyone doing that.

[Mr Mystery]

And the impression that the USA is populated by rabid simpletons is perpetuated.

Even though the one's I've met in my life have been pretty lovely, all things considered.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah. Literally every yank I've met in the flesh has been perfectly pleasant.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's a minority to be sure, but one that's loud and utterly terrifying. I'm pretty sure you'd see similar displays in Pyongyang...

[Mr Mystery]

Councillor successfully prosecuted for downloading obscene images of boys. Refuses to stand down (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35321855)

Why? Why can't there be an automatic sacking mechanism for any stripe of Politician. Why can't we expect them to be of exemplary character and honesty?

MPs can have the whip removed, but forcibly de-selecting them is damned difficult. I understand you can't actually sack a Peer. Councillors clearly have it pretty cushy once in office.

Why?

[CoffeeGrunt]

One would imagine that's an immediate end to a career, that. Especially one that relies on the people voting for you...

[Mr Mystery]

Seems that would be true of anyone except Footballers, those in The Arts and Politicians (going on actual known cases 'yeah, but never mind')

[grimmas]

Well politicians are a dodgy lot there was a list of the offences collected by MPs doing the rounds a few years ago. It didn't make good reading.

It's especially galling considering standards they seem to expect everyone else to maintain, you know junior doctors and the like.

[Denzark]

Councillor successfully prosecuted for downloading obscene images of boys. Refuses to stand down (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35321855)

I understand you can't actually sack a Peer. ?


You can remove the title, but I understand there is some sort of forfeiture committee who have to put it forward for Her Maj's endorsement.

[Mr Mystery]

Utterly ridiculous.

Seriously. If I was found guilty of criminal wrongdoing of any sort, I'd be out on my ear - and rightfully so.

Why do we let Politicians set their own rules? It's ludicrous.

[Wolfshade]

Utterly ridiculous.

Seriously. If I was found guilty of criminal wrongdoing of any sort, I'd be out on my ear - and rightfully so.

Why do we let Politicians set their own rules? It's ludicrous.

That's kinda their job, you know to create rules.

My issues are with unelected (judges) who then make law.

[Mr Mystery]

Judges at least (in theory) get there by merit and their knowledge of the law. It may not be perfect, but I think its better than letting the populace decide (who lets face it are on the whole a bunch of mouth breathing simpletons who believe anything and everything the gutter press vomit in their direction)

Politicians would just wait until they've got a majority, then add on 'Clause 22 - Except us' to the end of every law.

[Wolfshade]

Unelected people passing laws doesn't sound democratic...

[Mr Mystery]

Someone's got to do it, and the laws can be challenged and repealed - so it's not a cast iron permanence type thing.

Anyways, Judges don't make the laws, they just interpret it.

And there's one particular interpretation which has meant my job is safe for the foreseeable, even if it has proven a colossal headache to explain to peeps.

[Haighus]

https://www.facebook.com/RTUKnews/videos/1566634110293133/
Made me laugh.

Ok, I can't get the video to embed in the post from FB for some reason. Hopefully the link works.

[Wolfshade]

They should get him to commentate on everything.

[Haighus]

Definitely. I found the comments on the video amusing too- half of them were raving over his accurate presentation of the facts, and the other half were bemoaning his extreme left-wing commentary. Somewhere within lies the truth...

I guess people like black or white perspectives.

[Mr Mystery]

EU proposals now published (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35458025)

Interesting to see if this shuts down the possibility of the In/Out referendum.

I hope it doesn't, as I'm pretty confident it will be an 'In' vote, and that will possibly cause Farage to combust and implode at the same time.

[Psychosplodge]

It's not going to remove the possibility is it? They're definitely having one.
And there's a chunk of the populous who will vote either way regardless of proposals.
But the biggest issue I have is if the EU/pro-EU government takes a remain vote as pro federalisation, which the referendum most certainly isn't about, it's about staying/leaving on the EU as is.

[Mr Mystery]

It was my understanding that the Referendum would only take place if re-negotiation failed?

Though of course, exactly what constitutes failure there is key.

[Psychosplodge]

No the referendum is to take place regardless, the renegotiation is an attempt to sway favour for a remain vote.

[Mr Mystery]

Must have missed that.

Ah well. Given that when you look at it, the Out campaign is still reduced to mindless scaremongering and giving figures either plucked out of thin air or so far out of context they might as well have been (take the cost of being in. They never juxtapose it against what we get out, both tangible and theoretical).

Then there's people just wanting to see the smug, poop eating grin wiped off Farage's face.

Which reminds me, I don't think I'm registered to vote at my new address.....best take care of that now.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm sure you can afford to put that off :D

[Mr Mystery]

All done - and it helps with the old credit scoring to be registered where I say I live, yeah?

So much easier to do it all online!

[Psychosplodge]

So currently, Labour is borderline unelectable imo based on living in a labour stronghold where traditional labour voters are openly considering who else to vote for, possibly for the first time ever.
And we're sat here watching Jeremy Hunt possibly do the thing that might push the Tories more than anything else to the same position.

Then wtf would happen at the next election?

[Haighus]

Urghhh Jeremy *unt really, really gets on my wick. I don't know how he has kept his job in the cabinet tbh, seeing as most the other cabinet politicians with policies that openly failed got shuffled out into the back benches and replaced with less controversial figures (who then maintained the same policies once everyone had forgotten about them). Like Owen Patterson after the whole badger cull fiasco.

[Kirsten]

at least we don't have Trump. you would have to be a special kind of idiot to vote for him.

[Haighus]

Indeed, very true. I'm glad we don't have the American health-care system either. Not yet anyway...

[Alaric]

at least we don't have Trump. you would have to be a special kind of idiot to vote for him.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/how-trump-won-new-hampshire/462168/

Hey look! I found out where they live!

[Psychosplodge]

Urghhh Jeremy *unt really, really gets on my wick. I don't know how he has kept his job in the cabinet tbh, seeing as most the other cabinet politicians with policies that openly failed got shuffled out into the back benches and replaced with less controversial figures (who then maintained the same policies once everyone had forgotten about them). Like Owen Patterson after the whole badger cull fiasco.


He's probably got something on call me dave I mean blair kept brown as chancellor till he stepped down, and there was certainly no love lost there by the end.

- - - Updated - - -


Indeed, very true. I'm glad we don't have the American health-care system either. Not yet anyway...

please don't scare me like that my better half wouldn't survive that sort of system.

[Haighus]

Hmm, very true.

Yeah, I think it would kill a lot of people- means-based healthcare rationing is just not ethical. I couldn't work in the US system, whatever the pay.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I've barely survived the tory government and it's surprising that I've made it this far, stuff like that terrifies me also as I doubt I'd make it.

[Kirsten]

Britain wont survive another Tory government for 2020

[Haighus]

Well, hopefully the death of the NHS remains just a scary thought, I for one am fully supporting the BMA and junior doctors in fighting Jeremy C-word, as this is one of a few initial routes the Tories are trying to head down, with the aim of collapsing the NHS in my view. If they get halted in this and the stupid 7-day care thing (at least in full provision, a hub-and-spoke system could work, but that is basically what we have already with A&E), I reckon they won't be able to destroy the NHS. Oh, and if TTIP gets scrapped too.

[Kirsten]

they have already made progress in selling off the NHS though. significant parts of it are already gone. plus there was a headline the other day about a healthcare contract being awarded to a private company, despite the fact that the NHS bid for the job, and their bid was £130 odd million pounds cheaper than the company. So the NHS provide the cheaper, better option, and it goes to a corporation anyway. so many of the elements that surround the core of the NHS, doctors and hospitals, have already been sold off. drug supplies, deliveries, buildings, trusts, all gone, or in the process of going. it is rather like the discussion about privatising the prison system when it came up in the commons and it turned out that G4S already operated a number of institutions.

[Haighus]

Privatisation of the services is one thing, but I was thinking fundamentals in terms of the basic tenet of the NHS: free at the point of service. Admittedly service providers being outsourced does make it significantly easier for the Government to one day just stop footing the bill, but it is that final step that I am most concerned about. I feel like what the Tories are attempting to do at the moment is make the NHS collapse under its own weight (by pulling out the supports one by one like some stupid political Jenga game) and then hold up an exhausted and destroyed NHS and say: 'see, it doesn't work, we should go private'. I can't see any other possible way of them getting round the (rightfully) huge support for the existence of free healthcare. So in essence, I think they are trying to run the NHS into the ground and then hold up their hands and say it wasn't their fault, just was a flawed system, obviously...

[Kirsten]

yes absolutely, I agree. The final sell off is the really dreadful outcome, but I think we need to worry about what is going on before that. if they are allowed to run the service in to the ground, then it will be too late to stop it.

[Haighus]

Yeah, definitely. I think there is still chance to squeeze the brakes before the train goes out of control. The Government has been forced to back-track on things before, so there is still plenty of hope. I think that is why Jeremy is resorting to so much misinformation and deception.

[Denzark]

Do you Manxers get mainland England NHS Kirsten, or is your use of the word 'we' slightly disingenuous?

The thing about Jeremy Hunt and his policies is, rightly or wrongly, a government, especially a majority, has the mandate to make policy changes in every area, without taking the opinion of the subject matter experts within that ministry, into account. Examples: The Home Secretary does not have to have been a policeman. The Defence Secretary has never served.

With that in mind, you have to ask why Jeremy Hunt is doing what he is doing. If you think it is for ideological reasons, you have to consider that a large proportion of the public will not accept that.

If it is to deliver better cost effectiveness - welcome to Government service 2016! All departments are subject to cuts. You get used to doing more with the same funding, or the same with less funding. Everywhere in the public sector does it, and doctors can't be any different.

In the military, I have been subject to contractual changes and a reduction in pension. I am not allowed to strike. I get paid a thing called X-factor to cover the extra demands of military life - working on weekends with no notice, no ability to negotiate for pay, can't strike etc. Whilst I would rather the government found the funding from elsewhere, to allow doctors to remain on their current contracts - the Foreign Aid budget instantly jumps to mind - as a public sector worker, I don't see why junior doctors think they should be exempt from the public sector changes going on.

[Haighus]

They don't- the last offer laid down by the BMA wanted to cut the wage offered by the Government, in exchange for keeping the Saturday working safeguard, by not making it normal working hours. Most junior doctors are happy to accept a pay cut, its the working hours that are the really contentious issue.

Also bear in mind that the wage of junior doctors has changed at well below inflation for some time, so in practice they have been having wage cuts each year.

On the face of it, the cuts are for budgetary constraints (aside from the fact the whole point of the NHS being implemented is that it makes the Government money to have a healthy, productive population), but the way in which they are going about cutting services seems intended to cause the overall structure to fail, which seems to be ideologically driven (especially when considering the internal privatisation, and TTIP).

Also, the NHS and the Armed forces are not a great comparison. Yes, they are both public sector employers, but the Armed forces are a contingency, to be used if a situation arises. They aren't being strained unless there is a war to employ them in. The NHS is under constant use, and very close to it's total capacity too. Slicing chunks of the NHS doesn't potentially cause an effect in a few years if there is a war, it causes what is left to take a greater load from the people accessing the remaining services. It just feels very short-sighted to cut front-line NHS services (and the hugely over-burdened social services), seeing as good health is so central to everything else the country does. Even the armed forces. One of the initial catalysts leading ultimately to the formation of the NHS was the sheer number of young men being rejected from joining the British army on fitness grounds during the Second Boer war.

[Denzark]

Is 'Second Boer War' a typo Haighus - I never knew this, always thought it was after WWII, and the Wikipedia history (best I can do at short notice) does not mention the Boer War.

As to comparison and contingency, the figures that in only 1 year since 1945, has a British Serviceman not died on active service, makes one think about contingency versus constant use. Your talk about lack of strain except in War does not match the reality of current overstretch - but I digress.

But, not to take away from the debate, the problem with the NHS is that it was never envisaged for anything other than a contingency for when things went wrong. Increasing population both through age and migration means that it is always at a breaking point at the moment. Something has to give - all departments are constricting and looking for savings - the NHS is no different and even ring fencing doesn't help.

Tbh I am not saying Hunt is right - I don't know enough about it. I am just saying any government, especially a majority (no matter how slim) has a mandate to make policy.

[grimmas]

There's no problem with the NHS it's our greatest social advance for a very long time. The problem is a society in which people have forgotten that all the rights and entitlements also come with responsibilities. Everybody (with a very small number of exceptions who will require the help of the rest of us) needs to contribute (and actually contribute being a critic isn't contributing) some will be able to contribute more than others but that doesn't matter so long as everyone does somthing. That's how a healthy society functions. No body gets to opt out and still recieve the rewards.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

My education wasn't free. The cost was simply deferred until I became a Tax Payer, at which point I consider myself to be paying it back.

Same with all the times the NHS patched me and sent me on my way.

[Haighus]

Denzark, the NHS was implemented after WWII, but the 2nd Boer war was the first instance in which the British government started to realise it had to do something about the health of it's people, and began implementing some kind of health provision. It led eventually to the creation of the NHS post WWII. More of an initial realisation in which the wheels began rolling for the process.

Anyway, Hunt has decided to impose a contract.

[Wolfshade]

I find it weird that we have a health service which is labelled as 24/7 yet two of those days aren't considered standard working days. I very much doubt that the cleaning staff would expect extra pay to clean the wards on a weekend, it is just a standard working day and I would have hoped that any medic would have sense to realise that if they are working in a hospital setting that that is not a 9-5 business.

I also find it amusing that many people don't trust the government to run it, (if we were in Wales we would be having the same conversation only instead of the Tories, it would be the dreadful things that Labour has done, longer waiting times than those on the other side of the border, worse survival rates etc.). Yet at the same time people don't want it to be run by business. So who does run it?

[Kirsten]

nobody is opposed to the NHS being run seven days a week, not even the striking doctors. they are opposed to it being run seven days a week with the same resources currently used for five. to be open more it will need more staff and a lot more money, which Hunt doesn't want to provide.

cleaning staff would get extra pay for working weekends if they are already working weekdays, because they would be on overtime.

People basically want the government to fund it, and to leave it to the NHS to run itself.

[grimmas]

Yep MPs often confuse their position with other's experience.

Same goes for the other services there are very capable and experienced people people who have achieved there roles by actually being good at it l, running them. When they start telling us government forced changes aren't going to work, changes being suggested by people who don't actually do the job, I think it fairly obvious who we should be listening to.

Also it rather telling that apparently anyone else in a service role need to be doing as a vocation as the warm glow it gives them is something they can live off. Where as MPs get a 11% pay rise and a yearly rise higher than the cap they put in place. And let's face it if anyone needs to doind it as a bl**dy vocation it's the MPs

[Wolfshade]

I wonder if you have ever worked in a 24/7 service environment?

The cleaning staff wouldn't be paid over time for working weekends as it isn't a weekend it is part of their normal working week. The chances are they would have some form of rota system so they do get time off. I mean this is common place, go into a shop at a weekend, does the Saturday staff get paid more than the week day staff? No. It is part of the working week.

The NHS when run by itself is a disaster. It consistently spends outside of its budget. The trusts run their own purchasing and some pay 135% more for identical products than others? How on earth is that best practice? Then there is massive discrepancies between waiting times for similar conditions with similar staffing. There is no consistency and it provides poor value for money.

[Kirsten]

any staff get paid overtime for working beyond their normal working hours. NHS staff work Monday to Friday. to work Saturdays as well, they would need overtime. cleaners who work Monday to Friday get paid overtime for working Saturday. if they work Saturday to Wednesday, they get paid overtime for working Thursday. that is the whole point of the strike. that ****wit Hunt wants the NHS to be open longer, without paying them any more, or giving them any more staff.

[Wolfshade]

any staff get paid overtime for working beyond their normal working hours. NHS staff work Monday to Friday. to work Saturdays as well, they would need overtime. cleaners who work Monday to Friday get paid overtime for working Saturday. if they work Saturday to Wednesday, they get paid overtime for working Thursday. that is the whole point of the strike. that ****wit Hunt wants the NHS to be open longer, without paying them any more, or giving them any more staff.

Why the hell is the weekend overtime? You can bet your bottom dollar the agency cleaning staff will have weekends as normal working days. With a 7 days a week service the weekend are normal working days. Unless I am mistaken then having staff working andays not being paid overtime is cheaper than having fewer staff and paying overtime.
I also doubt that Hunt has any say over whom a hospital hires or fires. If the NHS trust management want more then they can hire more. But the books must be balanced. If the issue is that there isn't enough staff out there well given it takes more than 1 year to train it is clearly a lack of planning in previous governments.
But why would I stay NHS employed if I can do the same job for the NHS but as a contactor and get paid much more.
The NHS isn't the only department that needs to make efficiency savings. My agency needs to make a 20% saving on the budget. The NHS is bloated it has antiquated contracts that need to be resolved as the old way really isn't helping the patients who are statisticallying more likely to die at a weekend.

[Psychosplodge]

I mean this is common place, go into a shop at a weekend, does the Saturday staff get paid more than the week day staff? No. It is part of the working week.


Varies between companies.
Worked in three shops. One paid no extra for saturday, double for sunday(they also paid everyone over 18 the higher minimum wage rate as once you were 18 you could run equipment so are doing the same job as everyone else over 18). One paid time and a third after six, and saturdays, time and half sundays. one paid no extra ever.
The first was a high street 1hour development place, the second a smaller supermarket chain, the last a diy place.

[Kirsten]

Why the hell is the weekend overtime? You can bet your bottom dollar the agency cleaning staff will have weekends as normal working days.

let's say you work a 40 hour week, if you do more than 40 hours one week, then any extra get paid as overtime. the actual days you do your 40 hours are totally irrelevant. doctors have set hours. Hunt wants them to do more hours, which means the excess should be overtime, exactly as cleaners would be. Hunt wants the NHS to be open longer, and for everyone to do more hours, without any meaningful pay rise, and so actually take a big pay cut.

Tories were the previous government, with the Lib Dems, but that isn't especially relevant. if they want an NHS that is open more, they need more doctors, there is no way round that. you can't change the hours of the NHS now, you need more staff in place first, then you can change the hours. efficiency savings are not relevant to this situation, this is about the ******* Hunt wanting to **** over doctors.

[Haighus]

When I was working as a care assistant at a nursing home I got paid extra at weekends. Barely above minimum wage, but my weekday pay was minimum wage. Most of the care staff at the home were parents though, so this may have been taking into account the fact that it was more difficult for them to work at weekends without the childcare that school provides. As Kirsten states though, contracts are usually determined by hours, so it isn't so much the fact that Saturday is now a normal working day, it is more that the normal working week has gone from 5 to 6 days long. I'm not entirely sure what Hunt hopes to achieve with the 'weekend' effect by just increasing the number of hours carried out by doctors though, as it is all the infrastructure supporting healthcare staff that also shuts down at the weekend, and which isn't being touched. You can be in hospital on Saturday, but still waiting for your blood results to come back on the Monday. More junior doctor shifts won't affect that, the bottleneck is elsewhere.

Wolfshade, you also mention efficiency, but the pilot results of 7 day GP's are... inconclusive at best. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-practice/access/wheels-come-off-pms-seven-day-gp-access-drive/20030528.fullarticle

Annoyingly, finding the average cost of a standard GP appointment is proving frustratingly difficult, but I have found estimates from £10 to £36 in various decent sources. For some reason, none of these sources link to primary data.

[Mr Mystery]

Sounding like a Europe deal has been struck (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook)

What it actually is, I don't know at present.

With any luck it'll be enough to convince swing voters were better off in - which we are.

I'd love the referendum to keep us in. Just so I can watch Nigel Farage self destruct, and the Daily Mail/Express offices spontaneously combust as all three realise they serve little purpose.

[Psychosplodge]

Deal? really?
He asked for nothing and got less. It's certainly not "a fundamental" change.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't think he got nothing out of it. Quite the opposite. He's addressed many of the concerns he had, and the Out Campaign were always going to rubbish it anyway, because they're quite, quite insane and don't seem to grasp that the days of Britannia Rules The Waves are long since over.

I reckon we'll stay in.

To pinch a quote from Enormous Si - Better to be at the table complaining about the menu, than reduced to rifling through the bins.

[Psychosplodge]

He sold it as a fundamental reform, and a return of sovereignty.
They reckon everything he's got will be managed within existing treaties, so essentially he's got no real change, so he has nothing. It's amazing the Lithuanian prime minister predicted the outcome before any meetings, "they'll argue, there'll be concessions, and there'll be a last minute deal that suits no one" or some such line.

It's a further continuation of 500 years of foreign policy, the pursuit of a disunited europe.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet compiling them into new legislation prevents us losing them at a later date - the limitation on benefits itself is particularly new (not that economic migrants exist the way the gutter press would have everyone believe....)

[Psychosplodge]

That's not really how the EU works though is it? It's all about the greasy politicians lining their pockets in brussels, so ten, fifteen, twenty years down the line when it suits(if theres a stay vote) they'll ignore these things as it suits them.

[Mr Mystery]

They're billed as legally binding, even though the EU differs not one iota from our own 'sod the morals, does it make me any money?' representatives (except Corbyn, who remains a man of principal)

[Psychosplodge]

So why bother having it? We've already got enough of our own corrupt politicians we don't need more.

[Mr Mystery]

It's the same reason I'm happy to insure my car with the company I used to work for, despite knowing they're barely competent - it's a level of incompetence I'm familiar with and know how to handle.

The world is getting smaller and smaller. China is coming up fast. Russia is getting cranky (probably needs it's bottle and a nap), and the US is getting antsy because of the preceding reasons. We can't stand on our own. We'd be crushed and flattened.

[Psychosplodge]

We're not standing on own, no ones talking about leaving NATO. Well except corbyn.

[Mr Mystery]

I was meaning economically.

But to put the theory I sent to you over PM into public.....

Boris Is A Ringer.

Right now, it seems many of the Tory party believe we'll vote to stay in Europe. Opinion polls prior to the EU deal (or 'deal' if you prefer :) ) showed a clear majority happy to remain. That's not going to be damaged by the deal/'deal'.

However, there remain a not insignificant number of the party faithful who will be voting out. So the top brass has decided to do a Palpatine, and aim for control over both factions.

Why? UKIP. Even though many correctly see him as a nasty piece of work, Nigel Farage has his creepy little cult of not-so-closet racists, and as a party they threaten to attract some traditional Tory voters. And they're all for the Out. So even though they've played precisely no part in bringing about this referendum, old 'Not a Racist, But' Farage would be sure to claim the credit if there is an out, and blame the Tories if it's an In.

Boris, enter stage Right (do you see what I did there?)

He's charismatic. He's a well known face. He's even kind of liked for a Politician, especially compared to the chinless wonder leading UKIP.

He becomes the face of the out. If needs be, he can throw it a bit, keep them just shy of a critical mass.

If it's an Out - ALL HAIL BORIS! Saviour of British (Well, English) sovereignty. HOORAY FOR THE HOME COUNTIES AND SOD EVERYONE ELSE!

If it's an In - Gosh! Crikey! Good game chaps! Will of the people. Eurosceptic. Vote for us. We did all we good. Blimey! Gosh!

All about keeping Farage's tentacles off the head of the campaign.

[Psychosplodge]

I think keeping farage off the leave campaign will boost it though among non farage supporters.

I think Boris leading the exit negotiations in a leave result would result in the possibility of a second referendum because I think ultimately Boris is pro EU but doesn't think the EU listen until people tell them No.

[Mr Mystery]

True.

There's definitely something going on there. I doubt it will stop Farage braying on and on in the home counties, so his chinless mush will still be in the papers - but it's all about not letting him take credit, nor pin the blame. Make him the comedic sideshow, and you can keep him and his lunatics under control.

[Tyrendian]

a few viewpoints from outside the UK, based mostly on our media over here which (at least those parts of it that I read...) does have pretty strong anti-Brexit tendencies:
- Mystery's points about it mostly being tactics, both by Cameron and Johnson, seem very plausible; keeps options for the Tories open to react to how things shape up
- I've always felt like Europe needed eachother in this day and age, not so much militarily (that's what NATO is for) but so that we actually have some reasonable weight politically and economically. I mean, we have a hard enough time as it is with the whole TTIP business, imagine how the US (or Russia, China...) would laugh in the face of any single European state (including but not limited to you Brits) that dares to demand any change in policy that's even mildly inconvenient for them. We'd have next to no leverage. And losing you Brits would mean losing one of the most respected voices in all of those negotiations, which would not only hurt you (because you'd be alone then) but potentially also the rest of Europe. Plus, it'd set quite the precedent for whenever any government that just happened to get elected somewhere (looking at you Hungary and Poland...) gets it in its head that it wants to throw away decades of built-up cooperation (not to mention basic civil rights and Democracy) because they're a bunch of right-wing lackwits.
- You dropping out of the EU would almost definitely hurt both sides economically (because I find it highly unlikely that would survive that drastic a change in political relations unscathed). More so than whatever benefits you might gain short-term by not paying to Brussels. But well I'm no economist so that's just my amateur guess, and I'm sure you could find hundreds of experts and thousands of statistics to prove both sides of the argument.
- Add to that the fact that having cooperation with your neighbours also means you can rely on them to help you should things go real sour. Look at Spain, Portugal, Ireland... significant economical crises, but they (to a degree) managed to pull through... heck even Greece, although they are having a much harder time. I highly doubt that would have gone better if everyone had just ignored any of those countries and left them to sort out their own mess.

That's not to say I think the EU does a flawless job right now, there's a ton of flaws for sure! There's a LOT of nonsense coming from Brussels, at every level. Many a good idea at our local level has foundered because of some obscure EU regulation. The EU parliament seems to get nothing done that's of much value. And yes, we're all paying quite a bit of money into that sinkhole (Germany roughly three times as much as the UK from what I've turned up in a lightning fast search of government statements, but that's not my point). But it's not like there wasn't anything good coming back, see above. And I think those outweigh paying 0.5% of our GDP in the long run.
Besides, I actually think having the Brexit issue go big as it does now may just be to the benefit of all because it may help shake up the rust and dust, and might force some real change. It hasn't done so in a major way yet, it seems, but who knows what may come of it in the long run.

[Psychosplodge]

What is the average Germans view of the EU? From what little continental media I've seen we appear to be depicted as the only country with a negative view of the EU.

[Mr Mystery]

Good point about the threat being a shake up potentially for all.

We've got some kind of concession, showing it is possible to renegotiate on the fly. I'm sure there are other countries now looking at their own leadership and asking 'well, why not us, too?'

If anything Britain has done well to be the first out of that trap. We've set a benchmark for demands that can be met, whether or not anyone thinks them being met amounts to much. That establishes a precedent and a framework.

[Tyrendian]

What is the average Germans view of the EU? From what little continental media I've seen we appear to be depicted as the only country with a negative view of the EU.

wel... you Brits have a reputation for being a bit strange anyway, which I can verify :P both from on here and from the occasional visit. Especially your news, feels like you are trying to forget that there is a Rest of the World sometimes :)

The "Average German's" view of the EU seems to me to depend heavily on the education and economic situation of the individual (I realize how elitist this sounds, take it with a grain (or sack) of salt but that's how it appears to me). Most of the sceptics tend to be on the lower end of those scales, with a few exceptions. A few years back a somewhat serious anti-EU movement emerged, but, especially since the onset of the refugee waves, that quickly got swamped in deep brown, racist filth, to the point where their founder and former leader, a somewhat respected economist, forcefully disassociated himself from them. They never seemed to gain much traction with their anti-EU stance (hovered around 5% of the votes), but right now they're scarily successful with their anti-refugee paroles (to the point where one of the leaders actually advocated shooting illegal immigrants at the border... not like we hadn't had that sort of thing some 30 years ago...).
Oh, and then there's the lead politicians from Bavaria, who I regard as a bunch of utter idiots but experts in populistic nonsense - those will say almost anything to grab right-wing votes because they're too clueless to stay in power with any sort of reasonable arguments. Think US Republicans, including some (but by no means all, they're not quite as bad as that) of the Christian fundamentalist drivel and you're not far off.

[Psychosplodge]

tbf our split anecdotally appears to be along geographic lines(at least based on who's mentioned it on fb), with a clear difference between outs in the north and remains in the south which could also be an economic argument as you're likely to earn more in the south east.
Education appears to be playing less of a part, than geography from what I'm seeing.

The Rest of the World only matters when we're invading bits of it :D

[grimmas]

The Rest of the World only matters when we're invading bits of it :D

Which is what it's for. Especially mainland Europe 😊

[Mr Mystery]

Also, I'd just like to point out...

Nearly 18 months and 136 pages later, an Internet Politics thread still hasn't been closed! Amazastound!

[Tyrendian]

point taken... we Germans just like to know a bit more about the bits we're about to invade, as evidenced historically by you taking a new continent and we taking Europe...
.
.
.
did I just say that?

[Psychosplodge]

Certainly the low countries, and bits of france Grimmas...

To be fair Tyrandian by the time you got your act together we already had anywhere else worth having :p

[Tyrendian]

Certainly the low countries, and bits of france Grimmas...

To be fair Tyrandian by the time you got your act together we already had anywhere else worth having :p

To be fair, by the time we really got our act together, you had pretty much lost anywhere worth having again... (oh wait that was a bit of an insult to India, and indirectly also all the Aussies and Canucks and whathaveyou right? Then again, that really doesn't matter anymore considering the size of the hole I've already dug for myself...) :D

[Psychosplodge]

No we'd given the aussies and canadians freedom, not lost them :D
We make war jokes, why shouldn't you?

[Tyrendian]

No we'd given the aussies and canadians freedom, not lost them :D
We make war jokes, why shouldn't you?

because we are Ze Ebil Nazees aren't we? :P

[Psychosplodge]

Aha standardized european engliz!

[Mr Mystery]

Ah.....the game is afoot!

'Appen old BoJo has does his column for the Torygraph, listing 'absurd EU rules and regulations'....apparently, none of them are even remotely true.

Boris....you old Devil you!

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, I think Britain has a kind of collective ego that has managed to survive a repeated smashing at Football World Cup after Football World Cup. By Britain I mean The English, really. Every four years they're making hit singles about being the best in the world, when even in Rugby they couldn't get out of the opening groups. :P

Britain thinks it's bigger than it is, I think it really helps to show people a truescale world map every now and then, so they can understand what a piddly economic irrelevance we really are.

Overall we're only twice the size of Cuba, which is tiny. Our navy was sent to the ship breaker yards, our army can just about keep an area peaceful provided we build a bastion in it and wander all over it, but the moment we're gone it all falls back down again, and our air force can only afford to make meager contributions next to the US and Russia.

At least with the EU we can avoid being America's 'me-too' state. Especially if someone like Trump takes the helm then economically strong arms us into whatever idiotic scheme he comes up with.

[Psychosplodge]

When we're talking about trying to hold pacify people that don't care if they die as long as they take you with them it's going to be difficult.

[CoffeeGrunt]

When we're talking about trying to hold pacify people that don't care if they die as long as they take you with them it's going to be difficult.

If the Taliban or ISIS were truly like that, why all the going to ground in hidden caves or escaping areas under attack?

Martyrdom is for the grunts, the leadership aren't so zealous. Still, we couldn't commit enough to fully remove the leadership, so they waited for the democratic machine to tire of the war and bring the soldiers home. Now Helmand is being taken back by them and all the troops and expense lost in the effort to protect it made irrelevant.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah true that's a bit of a balls up.

[Al Shut]

because we are Ze Ebil Nazees aren't we? :P


Aha standardized european engliz!

Always makes me think 'Zett? Ei donnt tolk leik sätt.'

Anywas I didn't pay that much attention to the proposed reforms but right now I heard a lot of putting in in black and white in the treaty (treaties?). Doesn't that mean there will be a long ratification process with lot's of parliaments and/or people that have to agree?

[Psychosplodge]

http://pre03.deviantart.net/5a22/th/pre/i/2012/090/7/e/pinkie_pie_shrug_by_rainbowcrash123-d4ujqpb.png

[Mr Mystery]

Still no sense from the Out camp as to what us being Out is going to look like.

BoJo recently suggested the Swedish Solution. Which, in short, involves things as they are, but no seat at the table. Why this is a good thing hasn't really been explained....

As for our Borders....surely if we leave Europe and it's treaties behind, they'll just pass the refugees northwards to their 'oh dear, leaking like a busted sieve all of a sudden, looks like they're you're problem now' northern borders, and straight into the UK....

[Psychosplodge]

It'll look like a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions that are best for it. Where's the difficulty? The majority of the world functions like that.
Interesting development over the weekend. The head of the British chamber of commerce has resigned because he can't remain neutral and is out leaning.

The french won't do that. One the interior minister said there's no reason for them to. Two its a bi-lateral treaty not an EU one. Three they don't want people to be successful as it encourages more, and they don't want to be a transit country on the scale of greece.
And it would be easily solved even if they did, just put anyone here illegally in prison camps, that they're free to leave at anytime to be repatriated. Word would filter back sooner or later that there's no point coming here as you're just going to be sat in prison. Finding a politician to do it though...

[grimmas]

My major stumbling block with the whole thing is that Call me Dave (Cameron) is the only who's maintained a consistent stance on this sort of thing. But because of other things he's done that effect my family and I very seriously I'm loathe to give him the steam off my piss let alone vote with him.

It's interesting how some very prominent players in the Scotland in/out campaign can't seem to manage remain consistent. But I suppose we already knew deep down that the SNP were racist and the Tories are megalomaniacs.

Very much on the fence on this one but it very hard to get actual information other than political rhetoric

[Psychosplodge]

You have to ignore all the politicians, because lets face it they are all self serving, and do what you believe is best for the country. Because you'll never get the truth from any politician.

[grimmas]

True. Its just a little difficult to work it out without reliable info.

[Psychosplodge]

Depends how you look at it.

For me we're supposed to live in a democracy, the highest power over laws in our country should be someone we can directly elect or remove. It'll never happen while we're in the EU.

[grimmas]

Very interesting point I'm going to consider that.

[Mr Mystery]

Depends how you look at it.

For me we're supposed to live in a democracy, the highest power over laws in our country should be someone we can directly elect or remove. It'll never happen while we're in the EU.

Except laws always remain open to interpretation. And given the horrendous influence old Dingo Wukka has over our Parliament, I heavily question the competence of any UK government.

Then of course you have unelected Judges making the determination, not to mention the House of Lords interfering with their life peerage because one's Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather murdered someone to curry favour with the then King/Queen.....

[Psychosplodge]

But the old version of the house of lords worked better, because they theoretically had the longterm future of the country at heart as opposed to the political appointees we have now. I twas a sense of continuity between governments.

[Mr Mystery]

Long term wealth of parasites well dug in, and with precious few ways to get them out, you mean?

Example? Fox Hunting Bill. No problem banning blood sports in general, so long as they're enjoyed by the under classes. But take away the chinless inbred's opportunity to chase a small animal o'er hill and dale before digging it out of a hole, throwing it to the hounds and then daubing their junior members faces in it's blood, and oh no. Can't go banning that, old boy. What. Tradition! As long as it's something we did at Eton, yes?

Too many fingers in too many pies. Europe is absolutely no different.

And look at the models being suggested. Seriously. Look at them. They're so utterly ridiculous. In short, we still have to contribute and follow the same rulings, but we get absolutely no say whatsoever. Anyone who thinks those are a good option seriously needs their bumps felt.

[Psychosplodge]

There'd be absolutely no point following one of those models. Keep in mind we're not some small economy like those places, we're 4th/5th depending what you read where, we've got a bigger market and more clout to negotiate with. The germans will want to trade with us we're their largest export market for cars, they're not going to put up barriers just cause the french are pissed we've stopped paying their farmers.

The EU is too busy trying to prop up the failing euro and it will never look to our interests.

[Mr Mystery]

It will never look to our interest if we leave. So no difference.

And we don't have the same clout out of Europe as we do within Europe. It's nonsense. Sure, Germany will want to trade with us - except they have the position to decide who gets the poopy end of the stick. Here's a hint, it won't be them.

It's far from a perfect beast, but we're still far better off in, than we are out. Especially as the Out campaign can't decide what we'll do if we do leave. That's a pretty major thing they need to agree to at least pretend to agree on....

[Kirsten]

yup, the two sides are essentially 'stay in the system and try to sort it' or 'leave the system and do something, we don't know what, we can't decide what we will do, or what it will result in'

[Psychosplodge]

We'll do what suits us like every other country does.

We'll still have plenty compared to most countries in the world.

There's zero evidence either way to where we'll be better off. It's all fear mongering of one sort of another, and as I said earlier it's for individuals to make up their mind. The politicians of all stripes are about filling their own pockets no one elses.

[Kirsten]

I am not against the idea of leaving, it's just that the out campaign need an actual plan to vote for. both sides are being silly, but we know what staying in means, whereas the out campaign is nothing but fear mongering and over the top 'patriotic' bull.

[Mr Mystery]

Falling pound, caused by uncertainty isn't fear mongering. That's factual.

Captains of Industry not being keen to leave. That's factual.

In short, most of the Out campaign seems to be based on the misguided notion that they'll listen to us more if we leave, not to mention the misapprehension we still have an Empire worth a jot - the gradual dissolution of which lead us into Europe in the first place as our stranglehold on world trade slipped.

There's a lot to be said for being aware just how crappy a given situation currently is, and acknowledging it may yet be the best option available.

As for the France/UK agreement about Calais....I find it very hard to believe that France just sort of agreed to 'well, keep them all on your side, and on your dime, and we'll send some nice chaps over to tell them no overthere, yeah?'. There must be other concessions involved, because no matter how you butter it, that's a rubbish deal for France given the alternative is 'oh noes....another hole in fence. Mon dieu we really should fix that. Perhaps next year. Or the year after that. But we'll do it, promise. Honest we will. And that's likely to be concession in the colour of Europe....take that away, and why should they maintain a treaty which seems otherwise incredibly one sided?

[Psychosplodge]

That's any uncertainty, its happened before or do you not remember the €1.10 for your £ about three or four years ago?

Captains of industry are largely silent on the issue. Two thirds declined to sign the letter call me Dave was waving around as a victory.
The head of the British chamber of commerce has resigned for being pro leaving.
Also don't forget business leaders think in the short term, not the long term.

We're essentially paying the policing of it aren't we? Didn't cameron announce another £20m towards it last week or the week before or something?

[Mr Mystery]

All the more reason for France to suddenly be 'nah, off they go. Run free! Right through the tunnel whilst we look the other way smoking or Gauloise'.

And considering that sadly, racist types are drawn to the out camp, that's a glaring omission of honesty on their behalf.

[Psychosplodge]

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean everyone supporting out is racist by a long shot, and that kind of smear campaign shows the ins are genuinely worried about losing.

[grimmas]

Well we could do what the Austrailians do.

Neither side is coming out with anything inspiring at the moment. Being linked to a financial disaster like Greece doesn't inspire me with confidence.

[Denzark]

Do you remember them people in banking companies? Them ones who get all the hassle for being rich and yet exposing stocks shares and all that gash to risk? Playing games with other people's money? Them ones it is fashionable to castigate as tax dodging, self-enriching corrupt and fradulent thieves?

Bankers, I think they are called.

Well the reason bankers exist is because of the way the market works. They perpetuate this system wherein they make millions taking risk with electronic numbers - they don't even have the money in their accounts.

This system is also perpetuated by ... wait for it... these so-called 'Captains of Industry'. Bosses of stock market floated companies who are worried that share fluctuations will mean their pay, often in share options- will be worth less, with Brexit.

I see absolutely nill reason why they are respectable members of the business establishment, but bankers are bloodsucking scum who should be castigated.

I heard one BCC/CBI or similar wallah, on R4 Today programme, confess that serious analysis shows a possible 1% contraction of the economy. Hardly the financial apocalypse the In Campaign are trying to frighten people with.

Frankly I think real entrepeneurs would take advantage of the opportunities posed by de-regulation from EU financial policies - remembering that they are an organisation who back the Euro - not the world's greatest example of financial skill. China and America would appreciate having a de-regulated floating business park off the EU and we should take advantage.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Funny thing is, an Out result wouldn't actually change that much in terms of law. Many EU regulations have bodies in the UK government that have made them legislation here. Health and Safety, Environmental stuff, things like that.

The In campaign keeps talking about EU laws like how if we leave the EU, we lose these laws, but that's silly. We took what worked really well from the EU and made it our own. Our laws on Health and Safety are actually more stringent than most guidelines, and second only to Germany's measures. Other stuff likewise has national legislation that would take over in the event of us exiting. Human rights, fair treatment of workers, all of that is already covered.

Heck we were writing 'fair treatment of workers' regulations before the Second World War, and had most of the important parts firmly in place before joining. A lot of it was used to set up the EU laws on human rights and worker treatment, etc anyway.

[Denzark]

True but the ability of our elected government to pick and choose legislation without reference to a group of politicians the vast majority of which never appear on a uk ballot paper, whilst paying £35m a day for the privilege, is not to be taken lightly.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes, because our MPs certainly aren't in the pocket of The Banks at all, are they?

And I keep seeing different numbers bandied about regarding how much Europe 'costs us' each day. usually thrown around by the out campaign, and with no reference made to the benefits we get from being in Europe. In sources suggest we get back what we put in to a factor of 10, all things considered. But no. Just keep on throwing 'scary' numbers around and hope the populace are as thick as the right wing need them to be to get away with their nonsense.

And in other news, The Sun once again leads with a made up headline - about something said which has been denied by both the person meant to have said it, and the person it was meant to have been said to. But oh no. Clearly their 'anonymous' sources must be more reliable than those who were apparently the conversation. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35760912)

[Psychosplodge]

It seems odd they'd print something so potentially libellous. Especially considering the monarchs well known position as being above politics.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Indeed, the Queen leaves it to her Parliament, who are meant to enact the peoples' will through democratic action. Since this Referendum is already established as a democratic action the populace will be deciding upon the outcome of, her opinion is ultimately irrelevant unless she uses more power than she really should, and ever has. She ultimately never stopped any of the wars we declared, which would likely have had at least as strong an emotional reaction from her.

But y'know, just put, "Queen thinks this," in a paper to push knuckle-dragging jingoists towards voting where Murdoch wants them to vote.

[Mr Mystery]

This is Dingo Wukka we're talking about, the world's most evil media baron.

His rags get away with it because they've got dirt on just about everyone - which is why they loathe Corbyn so. Never mind the bloke's politics (which I happen to broadly agree with). They never saw him coming, and thus haven't spent his career trying to either get blackmail material or otherwise buy him.

Also - How to clean up the British Press

It's simple. Had an untruthful front page? Ran a 14 page expose which you knew all along was twaddle? Then guess what. You're apology and retraction is going to be given identical prominence to it's cause. No more stuffed away in the corner in tiny print.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, they really went all-out on a smear campaign against Corbyn, and once it all turned out to be deliberately out of context or misrepresented, it became incredibly petty and laughable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% on whether I'll vote for Corbyn's Labour come the election. I think I will, predominantly because another four years of Tory isn't what this country needs, and I'm still amazed they did so strongly last election. Probably due to an utterly lifeless Labour, a laughable Lib-Dem, and general worry about UKIP et al.

However, Corbyn is a much-needed shake-up and he's doing an awful lot of things right, IMO. He's a bit more respectable, and is an actual leftie for once. I'm glad his presence is starting to drag our politics back from the brink of becoming an American-style circus of right-wing bull.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

When you've got left and right, it becomes a fight for the middle ground. As I said in this thread, the last choice was Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR EXTREME TORY - or UKIP, as they prefer to be known.

And Corbyn is doing far, far better than 'the establishment' would ever care to admit. Me, I really like his performances at PMQ. He's dignified, and doesn't join in with the mud slinging. This quiet approach really exposes the Hooray Henry hijinx the Tories prefer. Such as having a cheap pop at his suit rather than answer the question....

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, a lot of the time it seems to be Tories trying to make a quip about him while he sort of waits for them to stop acting like playground children and actually do some bloody politics.

Seeing it makes me wanna barge into Westminster and yell at the useless, overpaid c*nts to actually do their job and fix the damn country.

[Mr Mystery]

I'd settle for them not just running the country for themselves, to be honest.

I don't think a given country can ever be 'fixed' by politicians. It has to be the populace. Hell, I even agree with Call Me Dave's base concept for 'Big Society' - but as with most Tory policies, it's how they implement (well, we've cut everything so you'll have to look out for each other, what?) that gets my goat.

[grimmas]

How dare you Mystery those politicians are in it with us all. It's not as if they've given themselves 2 pay rises above the public sector pay rise cap they set ......oh right they did that in one case 10 times higher.

[Psychosplodge]

How misleading Grimmas, they set up a "totally independent" commission to evaluate their pay levels.
I wonder who sets the commisions pay level?

[grimmas]

How misleading Grimmas, they set up a "totally independent" commission to evaluate their pay levels.
I wonder who sets the commisions pay level?

Sorry you are correct and they have no control over what the commission decides, despite the fact they set the members of the comission and well, run the country 😊

On the Suns headlines. My wife works in marketing and worked with a national sports team. She recieved press training (from journalists) and was told if an anonymous source was cited 99% of the time it meant that no one would talk to the press on a subject and they were just making **** up 😒

[Mr Mystery]

A different commission, made up of members of the first commission, probably.

Wages wise, I can't complain myself - I've actually done rather well since the crash.

But when I see this as the venue for the announcement of permanent austerity

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/430883/david-cameron-lord-mayors-banquet.jpg?w=402

I can't help but think of this

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5155d9ece4b06ce8229b7640/5159b404e4b0201012e95a74/5159b406e4b0201012e95b46/1364833902647/MmeAntoinette_cake.jpg

Especially when IDS reckons benefits are easily lived on, as is minimum wage, whilst he claims THIRTY NINE QUID for a sodding breakfast.

I can feed myself for a fortnight on that, if I'm frugal and don't object to most meals being Pasta with a Supermarket Basics sauce, or otherwise homemade pizza (which I can knock out, dough and all, for roughly 50p)

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/08/tory-contempt-disabled-people-hits-whole-new-level-force-cuts/

So hate this country these days.

[Denzark]

And I keep seeing different numbers bandied about regarding how much Europe 'costs us' each day. usually thrown around by the out campaign, and with no reference made to the benefits we get from being in Europe. In sources suggest we get back what we put in to a factor of 10, all things considered. But no. Just keep on throwing 'scary' numbers around and hope the populace are as thick as the right wing need them to be to get away with their nonsense.

MM - There is a BBC R4 programme, I forget what it is called - but is specialises in debunking the figures behind political statements. The 'Outers' will often quote a figure of £55m per day - which this programme advises is accurate - but represents the pre-EU rebate figure. After the rebate, the figure was assessed to be £35m, which is I believe what I quoted. Whether or not you respect the veracity of the (left biased) BBC reporting - that is my recollection of their academic assessment of the figures.


Yup.

When you've got left and right, it becomes a fight for the middle ground. As I said in this thread, the last choice was Tory, Diet-Tory and FULL STRENGTH INSANITY FLAVOUR EXTREME TORY - or UKIP, as they prefer to be known.

And Corbyn is doing far, far better than 'the establishment' would ever care to admit. Me, I really like his performances at PMQ. He's dignified, and doesn't join in with the mud slinging. This quiet approach really exposes the Hooray Henry hijinx the Tories prefer. Such as having a cheap pop at his suit rather than answer the question....

What is Corbyn actually 'doing' then? You (one not you specifically MM) may consider him to be effective opposition - umm, splitting the party over the Syria vote, and also the Trident shenanigans - but what actually is it he's done that you think is better than the establishment would admit?


Yeah, a lot of the time it seems to be Tories trying to make a quip about him while he sort of waits for them to stop acting like playground children and actually do some bloody politics.

Seeing it makes me wanna barge into Westminster and yell at the useless, overpaid c*nts to actually do their job and fix the damn country.

Question - do we want them to do politics - or do we want them to do 'Governing'? Personally I would rather the sitting government governed. I see absolutely no sign of Corbyn being equipped to do so or being fit to do so - but I would concede he may be a 'good' politician.



MM - I see your picture of Cameron in White Tie. Corbyn wore the same to that function, as did idiot Miliband before him. I personally have nothing against people wearing the correct dress code to any given function - and will do Corbyn the courtesy of drawing no conclusions that he is a 'toff' because he wore White tie.

What are you inferring from showing Cameron in that picture?

- - - Updated - - -


http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/08/tory-contempt-disabled-people-hits-whole-new-level-force-cuts/

So hate this country these days.

Not being silly AX - why don't you leave then? I don't stay in the company of people I hate, and I don't go to (let alone live in) countries I hate - with the exception of the various **** holes HM has or may decide to, send me to as part of my job.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

That is a fair question but I'm going to have to apologise as I don't really feel comfortable telling someone I don't know my circumstances as I am too worried about being judged by folk here, it's all pretty personal and complicated and I do not really want to talk about it here, so lets just say I would if I could and maybe oneday ill be able too. Perhaps a forum isn't the best place for me to let off steam anyway, I was feeling pretty emotional and upset that day so should of perhaps kept quiet.

[Denzark]

AX entirely reasonable and I don't mean to pry into your personal business, sorry if my raising the subject aggrieves you.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

AX entirely reasonable and I don't mean to pry into your personal business, sorry if my raising the subject aggrieves you.

No worries, thanks for being understanding. I really appreciate that.

[Mr Mystery]

£35,000,000 per day cost - or a smidge under £13,000,000,000 per year is the cost.

Shame the Out campaign like to gloss over the benefit....

What is Corbyn doing? More people are joining the Labour Party, and he's got massive appeal to those who ever so foolishly were born after 1975, and as a result have watched the systematic dismantling of the State that gave their parents a superb start in life. The same generation that had free University tuition, who proved it was indeed free as they voted for parties and leaders that reduced their taxation, so when their kids hit University age 'oh, sorry petal. We simply can't afford it anymore, you'll just need to suck up a lifetime of debt to avoid dead end jobs. Of course, by 'can't afford' they really mean 'we don't want to pay for it now'

The Tories don't govern. Far from it. All they're doing is lining their own pockets, letting large corporations off tax bills, and blaming it all on the poorest.

My problem with Cameron? It's not his personal privilege - as I've said before, he had no more choice in that than a kid born to junkie parents. It's where he chose to announce permanent austerity. Surrounded by luxury. Simply put, I don't think he's at all the right person to be in charge in times of economic strife. I don't believe any of the current cabinet have ever experienced anything like poverty. Poverty is ****ing horrible. I've been there. I've been homeless and all but unemployed. I got very lucky and got one chance. I took it, and thankfully things have all worked out. Not because of the Government (unless you count them sitting around as the bank's screwed it all up, thus providing me with my current career). They didn't do anything. Local council couldn't give me a place to live any time soon.

I appreciate I'm on a tangent here, but it's because it's something that constantly pisses me off. Before my current job (really quite comfy now, hence the occasional give away around Chrimbo, or when a forum friend needs a wee cheer up) I worked 40 hours a week, and my wage was £13,200 a year. Yet by the time is paid my rent, paid my council tax, bills and bought in food for the month, I had a frankly laughable £150 to myself. Now I don't know your own situation of course, but I can tell you that seriously sucks. To bust your balls all month, and the have next to nowt left over? That's not cool at all, especially when you've got pretty much the cheapest flat in town which was little more than a shoebox (finally moved late last year, and I've now got a very nice two bedroom place, where the front room is near on the size of my previously flat)

It's horrible - yet our Government has never experienced that. Again, I categorically do not begrudge them their lifestyle, but when they make callous cuts, then fail to do anything at all about corporate and personal tax avoidance (because it's only tax evasion if your poor it would seem), they show themselves to either be utterly corrupt, or utterly incompetent.

They're not governing. Instead, their simply inflicting their own political ideals on the country, and consequences be damned, because they are never going to be hit by said consequences, and it's unlikely anyone they know will be either.

Corbyn represents serious change. Nobody in my social group was around for what we're assured were 'the bad old days' of mass strikes etc. But we have lived our entire lives under free market capitalism, and all we've been is screwed, left, right and centre. It's time to see what's on the other side, and it's time for those who gladly took every hand out to start passing some of it back to their antecedents.

Does this mean I'll end up paying more tax now I've finally worked my way to a decent position? I can pretty much guarantee it. But unlike the post-war generation, I don't begrudge that in the least, despite that fact that once again it'll be people in my age group bending over and grabbing ankles - we got nowt out, but will have to start the putting in. If that means my God Daughter benefits? Totally. 100%. Worth it.

[Denzark]

Suffice to say MM, without a tit for tat going into your points, a couple of things spring out. Firstly - in government, having personally experienced something, does not make you the best person to make policy. The Home Secretary does not need to have been a copper. The Defence Secretary has never served in the military. The SofS for education does not need to have been a teacher etc etc until you come to the conclusion that having been on the poverty line does not make you best placed to make economic policy.

As to 'fail to do anything at all about corporate and personal tax avoidance' - well that is patently untrue. If they got even 1p back in back taxes, your statement becomes untrue - and the google tax issue recently was a lot more than 1p. Not the most that could have been paid, but better than nothing and enough to render your statement hyperbole.

[Mr Mystery]

So when a corporation should be paying billions in tax, getting them to pay thousands is a win??

Seriously? Like Vodafone being let off a £6,000,000,000 tax bill? (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html). Or that Facebook paid less tax than I did for the last tax year?

As for Secretary's for etc....yep. You put someone in charge of Education, why shouldn't the electorate demand that be someone with more experience of teaching than reading Tom Brown's School Days? Same with hospitals, police, armed forces. I wouldn't want someone whose sole work experience has been say, stage acting to head up the organisation I work for (will PM that to you, on account we're asked not to publicise it). They've got no relevant experience. Why should Government be any different?

And that goes for all political parties, not just the incumbents.

[Denzark]

I wouldn't want someone whose sole experience is spending all day drinking Special Brew from under the confines of a donated sleeping bag to head up the DWP - but, trolling aside, that is the system of governance we have - the Civil Service provides politically neutral expertise within the departments, and Ministers set policy in accordance with the democratic mandate of FPTP.

Likewise, I would love all these firms to pay more tax - then maybe my payrise wouldn't be 1% whilst my housing cost goes up at least 2.5% and my elected politicians - Corbyn's lot included - get 10%. But HMRC has to do what is achievable - small steps - unless you suggest all these firms are nationalised with all their assets in this country?

[grimmas]

https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work/articles/story/oil-price-slump-leaves-scotland-%C2%A315-billion-black-hole

Oops good job they lost that referendum.

Good example of patriotism before brains. Now I'm a patriotic sort (and a scoundrel or whatever it's supposed to be th last refuge of) but is going it alone a viable option anymore? Is it just going to make us more vulnerable to the capricious nature of global markets?

[Psychosplodge]

Theoretically it should make us safer as we wouldn't be indirectly propping up the euro when that has troubles.

[grimmas]

True given some of the member state's fiscal policies, but conversely wouldn't it also be propping us up when we have troubles or at least give us the opportunity to spread the risk a bit lessen the impact on us?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Thing is, all the money they're squeezing out of the poorest could be recouped if they made a handful of the larger corporations actually pay their tax.

Plus politics is the only job where you get hired based on how good you politic, rather than how well you understand the position you're in charge of. I.e., it's like hiring someone due to their skill with composing CVs and nicely-written cover letters, rather than hiring them because they're the electrical engineer you need for the position.

- - - Updated - - -

Also silly ol' Sturgeon doesn't seem to realise that oil isn't recovering. It'll be another deficit this year, and if they're super lucky, 2018 will break even. That said, Aberdeen has been gutted of offshore companies and many rigs are shut down for good now, meaning that even if things do recover, there's less companies to gain tax from, and Scotland will have a smaller footprint on an ultimately global market.

[Psychosplodge]

True given some of the member state's fiscal policies, but conversely wouldn't it also be propping us up when we have troubles or at least give us the opportunity to spread the risk a bit lessen the impact on us?

No because they have no reason to prop up sterling.

- - - Updated - - -

Sturgeon's in cloud cuckoo land, they have a level of devolved tax raising and spending powers, disagree with UK government policy, but have decided to not actually use the powers, cause once they do they can't ***** about it all being the governments fault.

[Denzark]

I wonder if we need a separate thread for EU referendum - there are other interesting political things that are OT. Like Sturgeon pushing the vote against Sunday trading in England in Wales - whereas Scotland has their own extended hours - and the SNP said they would abstain from England/Wales only issues...

[grimmas]

I wonder if we need a separate thread for EU referendum - there are other interesting political things that are OT. Like Sturgeon pushing the vote against Sunday trading in England in Wales - whereas Scotland has their own extended hours - and the SNP said they would abstain from England/Wales only issues...

And making a fuss about England altering its laws on hunting with dogs to be the same as Scotland. Why will England and Wales having he same rules be a bad thing for Scotland unless Scotland is receiving preferential treatment some how? Of course it could just be an attempt to piss us off so much we want them to leave.

[Psychosplodge]

Of course it could just be an attempt to piss us off so much we want them to leave.

I think that may possibly be her new tactic, considering they've already broken their not voting on England only matter pledge, but as usual did anyone expect any different from a politician?

[Denzark]

The figures in the Telegraph reckons that Scotland's deficit as a percentage of GDP, is 4x what the UK's deficit as a percentage of GDP is. Largely down to massively over-estimating oil revenue before the bottom dropped out of the market.

The out voters should be feeling relieved.

[Wolfshade]

The figures in the Telegraph reckons that Scotland's deficit as a percentage of GDP, is 4x what the UK's deficit as a percentage of GDP is. Largely down to massively over-estimating oil revenue before the bottom dropped out of the market.

The out voters should be feeling relieved.

The trouble is that when it comes to fact vs opinion we live in an age where opinion is rather more highly.

Having an economy that is monolithic makes it very, very volitile to outside influences. When the banks rumbled, the UK rumbled as banking represents about 10% of the economy, the highest proportion for all G7 nations.

Oil perhaps even worse as it is often used as leverage in wider political games.

[Psychosplodge]

It's nice that the Government, the supposed highest authority in the land that sets laws and that, has gone crawling on bended knees to their masters in Brussels to ask if they can remove tax on women's sanitary products (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35834142).

Why the **** are we having to ask others what taxes we can and can't set within our borders?

[Denzark]

It's nice that the Government, the supposed highest authority in the land that sets laws and that, has gone crawling on bended knees to their masters in Brussels to ask if they can remove tax on women's sanitary products (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35834142).

Why the **** are we having to ask others what taxes we can and can't set within our borders?

And this is why we should leave...

[Mr Mystery]

IDS has just quit.

Apparently, he's suddenly, after 6 years of clearly not giving two hoot, grown a conscience over cut to disabled benefits.

Genuine concern, or a worrying spat for the Tory party?

[Kirsten]

if I am feeling charitable, genuine. he used to be decent enough when Labour were in power. if I am less charitable, distancing himself from Cameron and Osborne, because he has probably the best chance at being the next leader.

[Mr Mystery]

He's been there, and fluffed that. Plus, he'll be going up against Boris who has very cleverly avoided any of the poop thrown up by the Tories landing anywhere near him.

I don't think I can be as charitable as you, given his general behaviour the past few years.

[Kirsten]

well it depends how you look at it. it can't be Osborne, he is hated, and he has the charisma of some damp shipboard. May is a bit too closely associated with regular home secretary failings, and is posing herself too much on Thatcher these days. Boris is popular, but not really trusted. and the EU decision could blow up in his face. IDS could be in the best position, and I guarantee you he is thinking about it.

[Mr Mystery]

This is the guy that previously cheered benefit cuts and changes....claimed people can easily live on £53 a week, then tried to claim a £39 brekkie on expenses.....

[Kirsten]

yes, but still less hated than Osborne... and people forget quickly. he takes a stand and says this isn't right, that will stick in the mind of tory voters. he isn't appealing to us lefties remember.

[Mr Mystery]

I dunno....all depends how Europe goes, and in either direction he still ain't Boris.

Boris the Etonian.

Boris the thorn in Cameron's side....

He's got good stock from his Mayoral run.

IDS was leader. For a while. He was then ousted following a dive in Tory popularity in 2003, and a vote of no-confidence by his own party. I reckon he's had his day.

[Kirsten]

but does he think that? we shall see.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh I'm sure he doesn't, egotistical little prick that he is.

And due to seemingly switching sides (I still reckon he's a carefully positioned and willing turd in the punch bowl), Boris has shown he's willing to 'listen to the party' and represent them. He's quite the figure head for the Out Campaign, ringer or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Or........he's doing it to try and embarrass Osborne.

Not because he's wanting to stay In, but because he's apparently got reasonable odds of making PM next.

IDS, being pretty much washed up, is quite possibly having his strings pulled by others....perhaps even to smooth the way for Boris to take over.

Who knows? It's the Nasty Party. And when you're friends are all confirmed *******s, what is loyalty worth?

[grimmas]

Or he's been offered a cabinet position by Boris if he helps take the wind out of Osbourne's sails.

Not liking my choices as a UK voter at the moment.

The Torys who by last calculation have taken over £100000 pounds off me

Labour a party run by a man who sided with terrorists who were murdering the people he wants to now represent.

The Liberal Democrats, who the hell are they any more

UKIP, oh for Christ sakes

Or the Green Party who are run by an Austrailian but did promise to stop planes flying over my house after 6pm which would make my life better.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Glad to see Arch Nemesis IDS leave. However Dark Overlord Osbourne and co are still in charge so not going to celebrate just yet. My disabled self and my arabic GF will still cower in fear at the way this country is going, while trying to build our escape rocket to Mars.

[grimmas]

It makes you think that Clegg and his lot may have actually been a moderating factor after all

[CoffeeGrunt]

Labour a party run by a man who sided with terrorists who were murdering the people he wants to now represent.

Look, if you're gunna say something like that, please at least back it up with an explanation. Otherwise it sounds ludicrous or a simplification of the Irish Troubles, if it's the IRA you're referring to.

[grimmas]

Look, if you're gunna say something like that, please at least back it up with an explanation. Otherwise it sounds ludicrous or a simplification of the Irish Troubles, if it's the IRA you're referring to.

Statement of fact of old boy. Don't get snarky about it. He supported PIRA (not the IRA that was 100yrs ago). They murdered British citizens in demtemined acts both in Northen Ireland and Mainland UK. No amount of revisionism will change that. Nothing ludicrous about it. If you are going to comment on this you should already know it.

[Mr Mystery]

Evidence for that, that ideally didn't come from either the Murdoch Empire or Daily Express/Mail.

And remember - Thatcher considered General Pinochet to be one of the UK's best friends...

[grimmas]

Evidence for that, that ideally didn't come from either the Murdoch Empire or Daily Express/Mail.

And remember - Thatcher considered General Pinochet to be one of the UK's best friends...

Don't be Silly Mystery he attended events supporting PIRA and he made no attempt to hide his support for them. He still refuses to condem their actions. This is not stuff made up by the gutter press to smear him he did it.

I also know that Chile didn't for example blow up pubs in Birmingham.

Although Pinochet was not a nice chap. US backed though I believe

[Morgrim]

Considering what the British military police did to civilians in Ulster, it is a drastic over-simplification to say that one side were terrorists and the other 'good guys'.

[Psychosplodge]

The British military were initially deployed to protect the catholic minority from loyalists, but the nationalists decided they made pretty nice targets.

[grimmas]

The British military were initially deployed to protect the catholic minority from loyalists, but the nationalists decided they made pretty nice targets.

Yes.

[grimmas]

Considering what the British military police did to civilians in Ulster, it is a drastic over-simplification to say that one side were terrorists and the other 'good guys'.

60% of all casualties of the troubles were caused by Republicans paramilitary, 30 by loyalists, 10% Government. Those numbers include "combatant" deaths and civilian ones the British Government did have its issues but it way small when compared to the **** carried out by Paramilitaries, which it was trying to stop. The RMP (Military Police) only have juisdiction over the British military. The British Army and RUC GC (the civilian police force) were tasked with keeping the peace for the reason Splodge mentions. I think you might be getting mistaken with the original Troubles back in 1916ish, now that IRA could be given the name of freedom fighters, PIRA can not.

[Mr Mystery]

That'd be the same PIRA that eventually knocked it off following discussions with the British Government then, yes?

And Corbyn stood against Apartheid in South Africa....

In fact, Corbyn has been 'ahead of the curve' on many issues - his position at times may have seemed abhorrent to some, yet his proposed solutions turned out to be the solutions.

[grimmas]

That'd be the same PIRA that eventually knocked it off following discussions with the British Government then, yes?

And Corbyn stood against Apartheid in South Africa....

In fact, Corbyn has been 'ahead of the curve' on many issues - his position at times may have seemed abhorrent to some, yet his proposed solutions turned out to be the solutions.

Revisionism and you know it they came to the table after 28 years of violence didn't work and their money from the US dried up. They'd never tried to talk without violence before in fact they didn't even try to talk in the first place. Also they weren't even formed as an organisation to end the partion of Ireland they were trying to protect Catholics from Protestants. He wasn't "ahead of the curve" he was sympathising with them. Also their violence actually achieved nothing as the New Labour government devolved evey part of the U.K. without anyone else resorting to violence

And finally the overwhelming majority of people in NI wish to remain in he UK, democracy and last count even 47% of the minority Chatolic population want to remain, pretty much all be protestants do.

You like the man fine but all the wriggling and deflection don't change what he did and what he stood for.

[Psychosplodge]

And that's completely ignoring his terrorist sympathising comments post paris - the beebs widely regarded as left wing still right?

[Mr Mystery]

He was ahead of the curve.

He wanted a negotiated settlement.

It ended with....a negotiated settlement.

But hey, PIRA weren't nice people, and did target innocents. That's horrific. But Pinochet of course didn't target British Citizens, so clearly a lesser evil. Ditto Apartheid.

- - - Updated - - -


And that's completely ignoring his terrorist sympathising comments post paris - the beebs widely regarded as left wing still right?

Considered Left by the Right, and Right by the Left - so I'd say Auntie is about nicely placed.

[grimmas]

Chamberlain tried that before WWII how did that work out ?

Pinochet did actually assist Bristih citizens.

Neither he nor the SA Apartheid government are the running for the Lead of the U.K. government the one that is supposed to protect British citizens. Donald Trump,s is a dick but he isn't running etither. It doesn't matter what others have done. He supported people who were murdering British citizens, not by mistake these people weren't caught in the crossfire or collateral damage they went out of their to kill them. He is not fit to lead the country.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You can't compare ISIS to **** Germany, they're completely different kinds of threat. One isn't even tied to a nation, is a collection of sparse zealots, and is centered around an ideology. The other was a nationalist empire with many soldiers considering themselves German before ****, even at the command level. The nature of it was entirely different.

Plus the fact of the matter is that peace talks have to happen at some point, and bridges have to be built. Inevitably, someone's gotta sit down across the table and talk to the man with bloody hands about ending it. Otherwise, what happens? Fighting grinds on and life simply doesn't move forward.

[grimmas]

You can't compare ISIS to **** Germany, they're completely different kinds of threat. One isn't even tied to a nation, is a collection of sparse zealots, and is centered around an ideology. The other was a nationalist empire with many soldiers considering themselves German before ****, even at the command level. The nature of it was entirely different.

Plus the fact of the matter is that peace talks have to happen at some point, and bridges have to be built. Inevitably, someone's gotta sit down across the table and talk to the man with bloody hands about ending it. Otherwise, what happens? Fighting grinds on and life simply doesn't move forward.


I'm not I'm suggesting that negotiations only tend to work after the war.

We're also talking about PIRA. Who didn't want to negotiate they attacked and then added some political justification later on.

No problem at all with negotiation but it's very hard to negotiate when someone's objective is to cause violence. There's a name for tying to negotiate when one side is still fighting and it doesn't tend to allow you to get a very favourable deal.

Remember the deal Tony Blair's government made lent very heavily on the cessation of violence before serious negotiations happend and PIRAs activities had dropped quite significantly at that point. It's not just "let's all just talk" you've got to get to a point where people are ready to do that. You can't just give people what they want just because of their willingness to use violence

[Psychosplodge]

How do you negotiate with someone who's literal ideology is join us or die?

[CoffeeGrunt]

So we should take a Death Before Dishonour route then? I'd personally have preferred we retreated from Afghanistan years before we got to the current total of 454 fatalities and thousands injured. What was gained from it?

So how would you suggest we handle The Troubles? I mean, after incidents like Bloody Sunday, how can the British claim to be in the right?

- - - Updated - - -


How do you negotiate with someone who's literal ideology is join us or die?

The IRA's ideology was more, "get the f*ck out of our country." Our ideology was, "no this is our country."

[Psychosplodge]

Sorry was on about the isis comment.

- - - Updated - - -

Bloody sunday reads very much like six of one and half a dozen of the other with a bunch of civillians caught in the cross fire. Though the american funded films depicting it always seem very onesided.

[grimmas]

Sorry was on about the isis comment.

- - - Updated - - -

Bloody sunday reads very much like six of one and half a dozen of the other with a bunch of civillians caught in the cross fire. Though the american funded films depicting it always seem very onesided.


Yep PIRA top boy Martin McGuiness has said that he was there and armed and other PIRA members have claimed he gave them a bomb and the march was cover for an attack. It was a bad deal but not quite how certain parts of the media would have us believe.

None of his changes that Corbyn turned up at PIRA support events and showed support for their cause. He wasn't just saying we should be talking to them.

[Mr Mystery]

Evidence of this?

[grimmas]

The IRA's ideology was more, "get the f*ck out of our country." Our ideology was, "no this is our country."

Only In the first troubles. The more recent one was about sectarian violence. They tagged the "freedom" bit later on because it went over well with their supporters abroad. The offical British Stand point was "eveyone stop bloody fighting" they did bang up Loyalist Paramiltaries as well.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I'm gunna need you to actually cite some sources for all this, Grimmas.

You're making a lot of assertions and stating things as facts, but have yet to link a single, official source noting the intentions you've said on either side, that Corbyn supported PIRA rather than negotiated with them, and everything else.

[Psychosplodge]

Evidence of this?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland

[grimmas]

Evidence of this?

Yeah it's in the report it's knocking about online.

[Mr Mystery]

I was meaning about Corbyn actively supporting the PIRA.

Because I don't exactly call inviting Politicians from Sinn Fein to Parliament supporting the PIRA....especially as at that time, Sinn Fein denied any involvement in the troubles.

[grimmas]

I'm gunna need you to actually cite some sources for all this, Grimmas.

You're making a lot of assertions and stating things as facts, but have yet to link a single, official source noting the intentions you've said on either side, that Corbyn supported PIRA rather than negotiated with them, and everything else.

You can google just as well as me m, the things I'm talking about are common knowledge.

[Mr Mystery]

Clearly they're not....the only thing I could find was about Corbyn inviting members of Sinn Fein (a legitimate political party, no matter if you find their politics distasteful) to Parliament shortly after the Brighton Bombing. A bombing which wasn't carried out by Sinn Fein.

[Psychosplodge]

I was meaning about Corbyn actively supporting the PIRA.


I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in the bbc's profile of him when elected labour leader, or possibly stood as a candidate. Considering what grimmas is saying sounds familiar to me and the bbc is my primary news source I'd imagine that's where I saw it.

There is no real distinction between sinn fein and the PIRA mystery. The guys at the top of one are the guys at the top of the other.

[CoffeeGrunt]

You can google just as well as me m, the things I'm talking about are common knowledge.

If I Google it, I could find other stuff that doesn't support your view, and you'd say I'm cherry-picking or misrepresenting. I'd like to read the stuff you read that told you all this, because all I'm hearing atm is, "I heard that.." or, "I remember reading somewhere that..."

I mean, you might as well say Big Al down the Winchester said so.

[Mr Mystery]

Just for brief lols...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oJzeI_k2kx8/Uv-jJ9YW6QI/AAAAAAAAAWw/CQSb73R8j7c/s1600/Man+in+the+pub.jpg

[grimmas]

Ok here's a couple for you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02z3x45

Where he famously fails to condem PIRA violence

http://m.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757

And here's one about him turning up to a support event.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-by-victims-families-after-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html

And a bit from the Independent, because well they're independent.

[Kirsten]

it isn't supporting terrorism, it is opposing armed occupation

[Psychosplodge]

What armed occupation?

[Kirsten]

whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant, that is what he is doing.

[Psychosplodge]

If that's what he believes he's doing he's even more removed from reality than the average MP

[Kirsten]

because of his views on a long running, incredibly complex and emotive issue? don't be so ****ing childish

[Psychosplodge]

Childish? Because I already hold MPs in contempt, but I hold one that supports murderers in more contempt than the rest of them?

Someone bring back the unseat sitting MPs campaign and let's start again with a full new set.

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's the thing. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Britain has had its fair shares of going bending the rules of engagement and has committed more than a couple of atrocities in recent times. Were the IRA wrong to attack people? Of course, and as he said, the idea of bombing people in general is wrong. However, political talks weren't working. Britain wasn't willing to give up Northern Ireland, and what was seen as an occupation by a party inevitably leads to a resistance.

[Mr Mystery]

Refuses to condemn the IRA?

Not from those quotes.....


When asked if he condemned the IRA, the Islington North MP said: “I condemn all bombing, it is not a good idea, and it is terrible what happened.”

Condemns all bombing. Apparently, that's just not good enough.

So it's asked again....


Mr Nolan repeated: “The question is do you condemn what the IRA did?”

Mr Corbyn replied: “Look, I condemn what was done by the British Army as well as the other sides as well. What happened in Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well.”

Interviewer attempts a Paxo, despite Corbyn having condemned all bombing, and the actions of both sides, ergo having condemned the IRA.

What's so hard to grasp about that?

[Psychosplodge]

Britain wasn't willing to give up Northern Ireland, and what was seen as an occupation by a party inevitably leads to a resistance.

Britain was willing to give up Northern Ireland if they had voted to leave. They were given a referendum on whether to stay in the UK or leave with the south.

[grimmas]

Refuses to condemn the IRA?

Not from those quotes.....



Condemns all bombing. Apparently, that's just not good enough.

So it's asked again....



Interviewer attempts a Paxo, despite Corbyn having condemned all bombing, and the actions of both sides, ergo having condemned the IRA.

What's so hard to grasp about that?

No it isn't good enough because the support shown In the past by both him and members of his cabinet (John McDonnell). Why doesn't he mention he IRA he's happy to mention the British Army but not the IRA why is that. Oh yeah he's trying to politic his way round it. He was asked a direct question but refused to answer it. Also there was a whole lot more going on than just bombing.

The man is a snake just like the rest of them.

- - - Updated - - -


Britain was willing to give up Northern Ireland if they had voted to leave. They were given a referendum on whether to stay in the UK or leave with the south.

Yep it's often ignored that that majority of the population wanted and still wants to stay.

[Mr Mystery]

He didn't refuse to answer anything. The interviewer didn't like the answer given. There's a pretty substantial difference between the two.

Why should he single out the IRA in particular?

[grimmas]

He didn't refuse to answer anything. The interviewer didn't like the answer given. There's a pretty substantial difference between the two.

Why should he single out the IRA in particular?

As I said because of his previous support (precived or otherwise) not just for them but the Republican cause in general, he was very vocal in his opposition to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which was an attempt to solve the political issue by both the British and Irish governments agreeing to go with public opinion. Mainly one suspects because the pro British elements would have won any vote on a stay or not stay issue ( have a look on Wikipedia it not too bad an article) We're going to have to differ on the nature of his answer yes it was an answer but not to the question he was asked.

Bar the rather spirited and enjoyable debate this hasn't helped my dilemma. I still ain't voting for a party that has him at the head and the rest don't tickle my fancy either. May be I should just vote to keep out the one I like the least. Which is no easy task I can tell you

[CoffeeGrunt]

As I said because of his previous support (precived or otherwise) not just for them but the Republican cause in general, he was very vocal in his opposition to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which was an attempt to solve the political issue by both the British and Irish governments agreeing to go with public opinion.


Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us oppose the agreement for reasons other than those that he has given? We believe that the agreement strengthens rather than weakens the border between the six and the 26 counties, and those of us who wish to see a United Ireland oppose the agreement for that reason.

To be fair, he is a Republican and hasn't hidden the fact. A lot of people are in the country these days.

[Mr Mystery]

Biggest difference I see between Corbyn and the other leaders is that he's willing to actually lead his party, rather than just dictate to them.

He's got his stand point, but doesn't confuse that with anything other than his position. I'd love to see the end to Three Line Whip nonsense (vote with the PM, or you're out) because I consider that to undermine democracy.

That Corbyn's sometimes controversial stances turned out the be eventual solution anyway makes me support him all the more.

Besides. We're the UK. We vote for party policies, not a Head of State. It shouldn't make a difference whether you like a given politician, the idea is that you vote for policy.

- - - Updated - - -

On the Republican side of things - I don't see much need for the Royal Family, so I'm in there.

But then, I have no issue with the Royal Family itself - they can't help the institution they're born into anymore than the next person. And at least Wills and Harry are having a crack at 'normal'.

- - - Updated - - -

On the Republican side of things - I don't see much need for the Royal Family, so I'm in there.

But then, I have no issue with the Royal Family itself - they can't help the institution they're born into anymore than the next person. And at least Wills and Harry are having a crack at 'normal'.

[Psychosplodge]

Also back to before the tangent into Northern Ireland,

I think IDS's resignation has far more to do with him being on the opposite side to Osbourne in the EU debate.
Looking at the idea he's setting himself up for a potential second term as party leader, I think he'd struggle against Boris. And has a negative perception against floating voters?
Negative enough to hand a vote to Labour? dunno.

What do we know about his replacement beyond he's pro EU and grew up on a council estate?

- - - Updated - - -

On republicanism for the UK, I see the constitutional monarchy as the least worst option. Certainly better than any alternative presidential system that's ever been mooted, and theoretically above politics (and more importantly party politics)

[grimmas]

To be fair, he is a Republican and hasn't hidden the fact. A lot of people are in the country these days.

Haha yeah that sort of Republican wouldn't have been an issue it was the Irish Republican cause he was supporting to whoch I was referring . He is the other sort of republican as well but that's not really that much of an issue, obviously he's wrong, but it doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Mr Mystery]

Also back to before the tangent into Northern Ireland,

I think IDS's resignation has far more to do with him being on the opposite side to Osbourne in the EU debate.
Looking at the idea he's setting himself up for a potential second term as party leader, I think he'd struggle against Boris. And has a negative perception against floating voters?
Negative enough to hand a vote to Labour? dunno.

What do we know about his replacement beyond he's pro EU and grew up on a council estate?

- - - Updated - - -

On republicanism for the UK, I see the constitutional monarchy as the least worst option. Certainly better than any alternative presidential system that's ever been mooted, and theoretically above politics (and more importantly party politics)

I don't think IDS has a shadow of a chance of being leader for a second time - not when his own party ousted him outside of an election. I'm not sure that's really a track record you can follow up on.

And yeah. It's totally, 100% political shadery going on. I suspect he's twigged Boris is a ringer for the In campaign (so far all of Boris' claims have been nixed upon even cursory investigation). But oddly, if he's angling to be the face of the Out campaign, he may do even more damage. He's quite possibly one of the most loathed current MPs. He says he's compassionate....but then is caught on film cheering the cuts from the previous budget.

He's a weasel and no mistake.

[grimmas]

That Corbyn's sometimes controversial stances turned out the be eventual solution anyway makes me support him all the more.

Besides. We're the UK. We vote for party policies, not a Head of State. It shouldn't make a difference whether you like a given politician, the idea is that you vote for policy.



That's the thing it wasn't his solution he wanted the unification of NI and Ireland the actual outcome was a referendum (something he initially voted against I can't bothered to check how he went in 1998). He opposed the idea of actually letting the people of NI choosing in 1985.

Yep it is party politics but the leader selects the cabinet (which I also have issues in the case of a number of the shadow cabinets members). The PM also has the biggest voice of all the politicians in the country so there is very much an element in voting for the party leader. They also do have substantial power over the direction their party takes.


As to IDS replacement I'd wager he'll toe the party line. He's defo been chosen for his past, council estate boy, single parent family. He's still a Tory though

[Mr Mystery]

But if you look at Corbyn's shadow cabinet, it's pretty inclusive and cross-party, which is fairly unusual in Westminster. It's usually filled with toadies and old boys, regardless of which party it's formed for/from.

Hence I have every confidence in him.

[Psychosplodge]

But if you look at Corbyn's shadow cabinet, it's pretty inclusive and cross-party, which is fairly unusual in Westminster. It's usually filled with toadies and old boys, regardless of which party it's formed for/from.


Aye, until you speak out of line, and then you're banished to the back benches, unless you're a big enough name yourself that doing so would make him look weaker.

[Mr Mystery]

There's speaking out of line and throwing teddy from the pram.

The membership elected Corbyn by a decent majority. If others in the party don't like it, they really need to either a) leave the party, b) make the best of it and shush.

[grimmas]

Surely that's just another way of using the whip.

I'm not really fussed about the inclusive nature of the shadow cabinet I've got an issue with the actual members. Same problem I've got with the Government actually.

[Mr Mystery]

Not really.

Corbyn chose a variety of voices for the shadow cabinet, clearly with the expectation they'd work together for the good of the party.

If Blairites don't like the way the party is headed, despite the pretty clear mandate (god I hate that word. I feel it's abused too much to excuse really horrifying behaviour politically) from the membership that they want a shift to the left....well....tough. Work with your leader. Not against him.

[Psychosplodge]

Same problem I've got with the Government actually.



All self serving hypocrits you can't trust as far as you can throw them?

[grimmas]

All self serving hypocrits you can't trust as far as you can throw them?

Blimey it's like you're reading my mind 😜 Although I'm quite strong I reckon I could throw some of them quite a way, well I willing to give it a go, all in the interests of science obviously.

Yep Mystery he does have clear mandate. Wasn't there a change in the way the vote was held though involving all party members rather than just MPs? I wasn't paying full attention I was to busy spitting blood at the mere mention of his name 😊

[Mr Mystery]

Can you start with Slime Boy, aka Fish Faced Michael Gove.

Being slimy, in theory a good squeeze ought to launch him a decent half mile or so.

[grimmas]

Can you start with Slime Boy, aka Fish Faced Michael Gove.

Being slimy, in theory a good squeeze ought to launch him a decent half mile or so.

It amazing really he's the living embodiment of a stereotypical Tory MP what are they thinking.