Printable version of thread

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2015, 07:12 PM

I thought it would be fun to have a thread keeping track of various Tory lies and deceptions. I’ll start with a few examples of some of their pre-election pronouncements. I’ll use separate posts so that it is easier to discuss each one.

In February, a Tory minister announced that fracking would not be allowed in SSSIs. Yesterday, they announced a slight change in policy. The word “not” has been removed. Well, it’s only three letters, isn’t it?

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2015, 07:12 PM

In February the Culture, Media & Sport select committee published a report about the BBC. One section looked at the way the BBC was bounced into a very harsh licence foo settlement after the 2010 election. The MPs concluded that this should not be allowed to happen again, and that the process should be more open next time. The report was presented by the then chair of the committee, a Tory MP called John Whittingdale.

Earlier this month, the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, who, by a remarkable coincidence, is a Tory MP called John Whittingdale, bounced the BBC into paying for the free licences for over 75s. So, when Cameron promised not to reduce any pensioners’ benefits, he forgot to tell us that some of the cost of that would be borne by the BBC. Perhaps the next move will be to replace, say, £40 of the pension with grocery vouchers. Those vouchers would be redeemable in supermarkets etc., but the cost will be borne by the retailer, not the government.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2015, 07:13 PM

Shortly before the first election debate, a Lib Dem minister (remember when they were a thing?) claimed that the Tories were considering cuts to child tax credits. Cameron was asked about that in the debate. He responded that it was in a report listing various options and that it had been dismissed. He went on to say that it would be dismissed again if the Tories were still in power after the election. In last week’s Budget, Osborne announced large cuts in child tax credit, cuts which will more than outweigh the increase in the minimum wage for many families.

Posted by: popchartfreak 17th July 2015, 11:35 PM

How about (and this one concerns me and my rapidly deteriorating parents) the sudden change of date in policy for those paying for their own care from savings and the house they live in (and I live in) cap being delayed until 2020 when they swore it was coming in in 2015/6.

These are all issues which the opposition should be loudly shouting from the rooftops about, the Tories are changing all of their promises already in a bold, slimy manner weeks into a new government and no-one is accusing them of anything like the furore the libdems got over much less.

The prime function of an Opposition, even one in the throws of an election, is to bring the government to task and do it's utmost to protect the population from the deceit and self-serving in power. We need headlines and the same message repeated over and over until it gets through the right-wing press.

Tories, of course, always do what's best for them - both to get elected and then cherry-pick what they do and don't do afterwards.

Posted by: Calum Hood 17th July 2015, 11:42 PM

The one thing about the whole BBC debacle that's irking me a lot is that the Tories are hell bent on doing away with the BBC Trust, yet in their Green Paper, they're throwing statistic this, statistic that about what the BBC is doing wrong into the mix... from the BBC Trust.

Posted by: Silas 18th July 2015, 12:56 PM

After being found out for bombing Syria against the parliamentary vote, the foi act is now under threat of being axed

Posted by: Gage 18th July 2015, 02:35 PM

Even worse when they are trying to enforce the snoopers charter. They don't want the public to know what they do, but they demand that they know what we do?

Posted by: popchartfreak 18th July 2015, 03:59 PM

The Tories don't like anything that challenges their power-base (they are quite happy for multi-billionaire foreigners to have a massive political sway in the country, no question about British democracy there or quality programming, quite happy to see channels and channels of rubbish and endless Fox/Sky news propaganda) and the relatively small amount the TV-licence payer (not the taxpayer!) forks out for the BBC gives the UK enormous international rational prestige worth billions to the UK in industry promotion, the music industry gets millions from the BBC radio promotion of new music that commercial radio ignores, and the BBC DVD and foreign sales section brings in shitloads of money for the likes of Doctor Who. Not to mention award winning entertainment and information programmes.

The Tory government is totally politically motivated, there is no public outcry to get rid of the licence fee, just some people dodging paying for it by going online. That is easily resolved with a TV licence pass code. It's also an opportunity to charge pay as you go for non-licence-fee payers and non-UK-residents.

Detestable. Loathsome. Feel free to add any other suitable words for them.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th July 2015, 06:40 PM

Calling Tories detestable and loathsome is hardly fair. OK, some of them are indeed detestable and loathsome but most of them are far worse than that.

Posted by: popchartfreak 19th July 2015, 09:03 PM

ha!

Posted by: popchartfreak 9th September 2015, 06:54 PM

following a very interesting Private Eye investigation into offshore-companies owning vast swathes of UK land and property, it would appear that David Cameron's assurances that he would chase tax dodgers and publish lists of who owns what have been left surprisingly unfulfilled. It seems that millionaires who can't actually explain where their money comes from (non-British) and UK-resident wealthy folk have offshore companies in tax havens, many of them British tax havens, and are hidden under layer upon layer of other companies to hide the real owners.

Private Eye has provided a handy online map showing all the properties in case anyone fancies doing a £3 land reg enquiry to find out more and try to match it up with HSBC-revealed files from Switzerland. The police force (who investigate only "the tip of the iceberg" due to lack of funding) would no doubt be interested in information.

An unkind person might suspect that the Tory Party have a lot to lose, given a lot of these individuals appear to donate large sums to the party (at the very least). As I'm a kind person I'll just comment that David Cameron is f***ing useless at his job - which is catching criminals, managing the economy, reaping in sorely-needed lost taxes - preferring instead to target the lower-end of the income scale to the upper-end.

It's almost as if he has something to lose......

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th September 2015, 07:26 PM

Indeed.

That map which you mention is available here and is an excellent resource: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th September 2015, 08:38 PM

How about a direct comparison between old fashioned inefficient 1980's local government and current modern streamlined outsourced local government?

How many members of staff does it take to change a lightbulb in Local Government?

Olden days? 3 (one to report, one in-house handyman to buy bulb, do the job and send invoice in to finance section, one finance officer to process and pay invoice (or petty cash).

These days? 12. This is not a joke. It's a minimum number, sometimes it's more.

I keep hoping some national newspaper will put a freedom of info request in to all L.G.A's regarding lightbulb changes and members of staff......

on the plus side, they are long-life, low-energy, white-light strip-bulb's these days, none of your 40-watts screw-in. There is of course, no screw-in allowed in Local Gov.

Posted by: popchartfreak 6th October 2015, 11:20 AM

interesting proganda coming, as the Rich get stuck into the poor, at the Tory conference and the Taxpayers Alliance led by a right-wing nut try to elbow them to move even more to the right, especially on old people, on the grounds apparently that they shouldn't worry about losing votes since most of them will be dead by the next election, at which point a few sweets can be chucked out at the survivors.

It's refreshing to see a Tory not trying to hide behind smarmy soundbites, much as the current intnention to make the poor work harder, as hard as the Chinese, it's their own fault, after all, that they failed to go to the best schools that money can buy and the subsequent career in politics and all those associated benefits that brings.

So there you have it, the kinder more caring Tory Party at last outs themselves, as racist, elitist, uncaring bast*rds who are intent on trying to force all councils to enter freemarket business rates policies to scrape together cash, leaving those poorer councils depending on handouts from the richer ones, cos frankly the chances of businesses relocating to (coincidentally non-Tory) councils is fairly remote.

Even Boris Johnson is going to speak out, apparently, at the lessening of his chnaces of getting to run the country. More than high time that Euroseptic split in the party came to fore....

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th October 2015, 01:34 PM

The government has recently introduced a new version of the Ministerial Code, laying out how ministers are meant to behave. You may well have missed it. While the last version fiver years ago was launched with much fanfare, this one was slipped out rather more quietly with a discreet, largely ignored, statement in the House of Lords.

One major change is the deletion of the requirement to have regard for international law. Dominic Grieve, Attorney General (the minister who also acts as a legal adviser) until last year when he was sacked for supporting Human Rights, has criticised this change. As for his successor, Jeremy Wright, you might have thought that he would have been consulted. Maybe he was, but this is what he said in a speech to an International Law Conference on the very day the Lords announcement was made.

That would suggest that, either he knew nothing about the change, or he knew about it and was making his opposition known, albeit quietly.

It should also be noted that the government have said they made the change to bring the Ministerial Code more in line with the Civil Service code. That is contradicted by Wright's next sentence.



So, yet more lies and deceit from Cameron and co.

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 29th October 2015, 10:36 PM

There have been so many reversals on election promises lately by the tory party in full blood-lust unbridled ive given up trying to list them. Easier to list promises they have stuck to...

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th November 2015, 08:06 AM

How about £2 m cuts to services in Dorset to support the mentally ill, alcohol, drug and sexual health, among other services. This will work out cheaper for the government overall because PEOPLE WILL DIE. Only just cheaper though, because a lot of them will end up costing in hospital afterwards en route to dying or improving.

Can I just say I loathe the warped values of the Tories, and their sick support of the massively rich in favour of hitting those most in need? Thanks, I knew you wouldn't mind.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st November 2015, 03:06 PM

They're at it again. Either that, or Jeremy Hunt is wasting a lot of time and effort.

Yes, it's the junior doctors' dispute. It isn't all about pay, despite Hunt's attempts to persuade people otherwise. However, he has been sending mixed messages about pay. He has claimed that no junior doctor will see their pay cut under his proposals. However, he has also said that the new pay scheme will not cost any more than the current scheme. Those two statements are only compatible if every junior doctor will be paid exactly what they are paid now. If that is the case, what on earth is the point?

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st November 2015, 11:27 PM

well, if my local gov experience is any guide, the maths work as follows:

get rid of some doctors.

make those not sacked work longer hours, and faster, with no pay increase.

job done. Apparent savings made.

Except that the unfortunate side effects turn up elsewhere costing either money or lives or misery, or any combination.

The concept of cause and effect and logic is as alien to the Tories in power as the local Tories when it comes to creative accounting and political theory over cold facts. Our council has just announced another successful couple of early retirees in Finance and Section 151 Officers, err 5th since we hived off staff to the (instantly) bankrupt private sector. These are facts. The public examination of the "savings" are not a matter of public record. They are "confidential".

The Tories (and Blair) really really hate Freedom Of Information. I mean, they really look down on it. A bit like my attitude to the local rag which chooses not to ask the right FOI questions and to publish them, preferring instead to wittle on about a dog bin not being emptied in a park (ignoring the root causes of bins not being emptied).

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st November 2015, 11:44 PM

Are you suggesting the Bournemouth Echo is a bit sh1t?

Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd November 2015, 08:44 PM

Shall we say there is room for improvement

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th December 2015, 07:01 PM

I've missed a few opportunities to add to this but here's one...

On the day that the Commons was debating whether to extend bombing to Syria, the health secretary Jeremy Rhyming-Slang slipped out an announcement. He has decided that some of the figures showing how the NHS is doing will no longer be reported. So, if you want to know about A&E waiting times, tough. They won't be reporters any more. Similarly, there will be no figures on how long people are left waiting in ambulances outside hospital or left on trollies for more than four hours.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th December 2015, 11:14 PM

How about the reviews on the banking crisis culpability, the banks who still own shitloads of bailout cash, are now 6 years old and beyond the date they can be held accountable, following "delays". The vast majority of big knobs who were in responsible decision making well paid jobs are still free to hold down city jobs. Not only can you cause billons worth of damage but you can get away scot-free. Now try stealing a bag of crisps from tescos and watch how much the system is prepated to pay out bringing you to justice. The rich and powerful are a cartel relying on oceans of poor to keep them rich.

Ive been reading private eye again, tch!

Posted by: Qassändra 13th December 2015, 11:28 PM

Stealing a bag of crisps from a supermarket with CCTV footage is just a *tad* bit more open-shut a case (for who's culpable, what happened, when, and whether any crimes were committed) than the most complex financial meltdown in modern history though?

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th December 2015, 11:42 PM

That doesn't excuse the fact that people are going to get away scot-free simply because it has taken a long time to consider all the evidence. I'm generally opposed to the idea of retrospective legislation. However, I might be prepared to make an exception if someone wanted to change this six-year restriction retrospectively.

Posted by: Qassändra 13th December 2015, 11:45 PM

Oh definitely, but I'm pretty wary of any assumptions that just because stuff as complex as this/the Chilcot Report have taken so long they're automatically lumped into the category of cover-up rather than cock-up.

Posted by: popchartfreak 14th December 2015, 08:51 PM

I'm less forgiving I'm afraid. They all got paid outrageous wages and bonuses to be good at their job, and like almost everyone in positions of power, abused it, failed to listen to those in the know (this is still going on in local government and government) because they think they know better because they are paid more than some lackey who they see as just being negative and out to piss on their huge bonuses.

They all failed miserably at their jobs, and the only reason they haven't been brought to task for 115 billion pounds worth of debt is cos the politicians who were on the case (and not just Tories) are going to look as stupid as the bankers if it went to trial, as all sorts of inconvenient truths come out when the pigs start to squeal.

Fairly open and shut to me. The banks went bankrupt, those in control of them didn't even get a slap on the wrist. It would have been 114.9 billion times cheaper to concentrate on the professional thieves and give petty thieves a slapped wrist.

BTW don't get me going on bonuses: the last Labour government apparently "had" to honour the contracts of top bankers in the nationalised (failed) banks, re wages and bonuses, cos it was written down somewhere. Local government staff get our contracts rewritten at the drop of a hat, and our salary (as agreed in a "contract") reduced at bureaucratic whim. One rule for the rich one rule for the relatively poor.

Have I mentioned how much I loathe hypocrisy? Thought so...

Posted by: popchartfreak 16th December 2015, 07:54 PM

can we add an about-face on fracking in AOB's and National Parks now? This is after the government pulled the plug on windfarms for being 15 miles off the coast as it would damage a World Heritage site by being in the completely opposite direction far out at sea, as opposed to drilling underneath landscapes and natural vegetation doing who knows what long-term damage to root-systems and wildlife. SSSI's are not protected.

Lies, lies, lies. Liar Liar pants on fire.

Can I just say, and I know "I told you so" remarks dont go down well generally, but I said not months ago that without the Lib-Dems reigning in the sheer nastiness we would soon find out what they contributed towards the coalition in preventing the wholesale Conservative power-hungry muscle. So, a quick "thank you very much" to all the effort that went into eliminating the Lib-Dems, and the totally ineffective campaign against the real baddies who dodged every bullet hiding behind the LibDems as cannon-fodder, and everyone fell for it.....

Be careful what you wish for or you end up with an unelectable opposition and a decimated handy brake on those who want to re-invent society as a rich-loving, tax-dodging, money-grabbing, vested-interested mirror image of themselves.

Effing depressing we have another 5 years of misery ahead, minimum.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th December 2015, 09:17 PM

The final day of Parliament is the traditional 'bury all the sh*t' day, and this year we've a VERITABLE BONANZA

* The government bill for special advisors ( Gideon Osborne has ten!) rose for 2015-16 to £9.2 million - up an inflation busting £800,000
* A damning report that reveals three-quarters of those affected by the so-called bedroom tax were cutting back on food to simply survive
* The report into the Muslim Brotherhood has finally been released concluding that they have a “highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism” but not banning them, thus simultaneously alienating millions who never espoused violence in the first place and also winding up the Saudi's.
* The government published hospitality records showing George Osborne had a private dinner with Rupert Murdoch on 13 September- the day after Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader
* The government announced a mass expansion of licences for fracking for shale gas: Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth confirmed that licences are being offered to companies to start looking for and extracting shale gas from 159 areas in England and Wales - including our national parks as ratified yesterday.
* The government published an announcement that conceded air quality will remain poor in major UK cities until 2020 and continue to fail to meet EU targets.
* As the Conservatives didn't get their way with tax credits, they've announced today that The House of Lords would lose the power to block certain legislation in the future.

MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th December 2015, 09:38 PM

The Tories enjoy playing fast and loose with the rule, frequently exploiting the fact that we don't have a formal, written constitution. This week, the government finally got their way by persuading the Lords to vote against extending the vote to 16-and 17-year-olds for the EU referendum. They threatened to bypass the Lords by declaring it to be a money issue. Their justification was that they estimated the cost of extending the franchise to £6 million. That is, 15p per adult. Note, that is not 15p per year, it is a one-off cost of 15p per person. It is generally believed that their estimate did not include an adjustment to allow for the fact that drawing up the register for the following two years would be cheaper as most of the new names would already be known.

Of course, if they can have something costing as little as £6 million to be a money issue, they can do the same with pretty much anything, thereby rendering the House Of Lords totally redundant.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th December 2015, 09:43 PM

The cost of special advisers should have gone down after the election. After all, under the coalition, some Lib Dem ministers would have wanted their own advisers in addition to those advising the Tory ministers in the same department. Of course, in opposition, Cameron promised to reduce the number of special advisers.

Posted by: Qassändra 17th December 2015, 10:05 PM

Ding ding ding! And quietly we slip into a unitary state.

Posted by: popchartfreak 18th December 2015, 12:58 PM

Bonanza indeed!

House Of Lords, who Tories have supported forever, now they have "made the government rethink it's policy that it tried to slip through undercover of a batch" (The Lords don't have the power to block, only to send back) are suddenly the Spawn Of Satan and the Tories wish to continue to have a second house that gets paid to do nothing effectively. While I'm not the biggest fan of H Of L as it is set up, I am very much in favour of a second chamber to spot-check the all of the sneaky slimy low-down hidden undemocratic laws any government tries to get through by hiding it amongst other stuff. Loathesome.

Murdoch got off scot free from any personal culpability in News Corp guilt (and they ARE guilty), and is a propaganda machine for any number of pro-rich legislation that allows him to continue to increase power and money. Funny he should have lunch with the Chancellor....

"Special Advisors" is another way of saying "paying shitloads to people who are good at putting a case forward for stuff we intend doing, spinning it, and then having someone to blame when it goes wrong." It's the modern political way. It's also deceiptful, also loathesome, and it's insulting to the intelliegence of people who aren't fooled by BS.

Rich posh boys have a justified reputation for mocking plebs, anecdotedly amongst friends who deal with them and their City cronies. One of my fave games is to loudly slag off investment bankers and the rich when I'm on the tube in certain parts of London, giving reasons why of course, and watch the newspapers shift about uncomfortably.

How childish!

Posted by: popchartfreak 28th December 2015, 05:14 PM

Dave is at again offering his sympathies, this time flooding. Perhaps if his government (and most others in the world, to be fair) were a bit less two-faced about global warming (cancelling wind-power farms, allowing fracking and not changing the law so that local government investments in environment and people unfriendly institutions cannot be cancelled, they now have a duty to get "Best Value" - like Oil, weapons of destruction and so on - then perhaps the links between more flooding, more damage and increasing global warming, melting ice caps and glaciers, might be seen more as cause and effect in the tiny little rich pea-brains.

Best Value, take it from those in local government, is not necessarily being forced to go for the cheapest option (that's why Labour changed the Tory legislation after it became bleeding obvious half of the companies winning bids ended up not being able to carry out what they signed up to) it's going for the most sensible and long-term most-profitable option. That would include not supporting, say, OPEC who are currently undercutting oil producers worldwide to drive them out of business/reduce their power, so that they can then raise prices and regain the political power in the world that they have enjoyed for so long, which allows them to get away with all sorts with no fear of political retaliation.

Have I mentioned that this government has issued dozens of statements showing them to be lying hypocrites? This is a fact.

Posted by: Qassändra 28th December 2015, 05:55 PM

Yes, we get the gist without you repeating this exact sentence in every post.

Posted by: popchartfreak 28th December 2015, 06:28 PM

It never hurts to reinforce public opinion through repetition. That is, after all, how PR works

PS, somebody has to say these things, the Labour leadership seem to be off for xmas, rumours of imminent shadow cabinet reshuffles obviously more important,

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th December 2015, 09:01 PM

When it comes to exposing Cameron's lies, the Labour leadership seems to have been off for Christmas for over five years

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th December 2015, 12:04 PM

Ouch! (The truth hurts... )

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th December 2015, 08:34 PM

Can I just say Happy New Year Oliver Letwin? I'd also like to thank Oliver for helping to re-confirm my utter belief that posh public school boys should not be let anywhere near politics when they grow up, cos they have, y'know, f***-all experience of reality, life, and people outside their closeted privileged upbringing, which totally distorts their ivory tower view of the world. It's not as if the unhappy people of the time weren't actually SAYING what the problems were, it wasn't a huge secret, just didn't break through the walls of bigotry in the H of P it seems.

The ability to speak latin is of piss-all use outside of academia, and encourages Roman-Empire views of minorities, it would seem, if newly-released government historical documents are any example.... I mean, it makes Thatcher look positively socially advanced in comparison!

Good to know that there's still room for people like Mr. Letwin in current Tory governments, I'm sure they all feel cosy and warm together.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th December 2015, 09:02 PM

The real joke is that Letwin is claiming that his comments were "badly worded". Perhaps he could let us know how racist remarks could be better-worded. These comments were in a written memo, so he had plenty of opportunity to make sure they were worded correctly. As it is, they were certainly worded very clearly.

Mind you, Letwin does have form. He was one of the prime movers behind the Poll Tax. In the 2001 election campaign, he told a journalist that the Tories had plans for £20 billion of cuts but that they would prefer not to let the voters know. He was kept well away from journalists for the rest of the campaign. In another election campaign, he told another journalist that the NHS would not exist after a full Conservative term.

It's not only his mouth that has got him into trouble. He was photographed dumping documents in a public litter bin. He somehow got away with it because they were not classified Cabinet documents. They were "just" items of constituency correspondence. Apparently anyone corresponding with their MP should accept that their correspondence might end up in a public litter bin.

Posted by: Qassändra 30th December 2015, 09:19 PM

I'll pass on the regards to Tony Benn and Nick Clegg shall I?

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th December 2015, 10:38 PM

yeah please do. Benn's not in a position to appreciate it though his soon-to-be-booted-out-of-the-shadow-cabinet son is...

There are always exceptions to every rule, but in principle I'm agin it without clear evidence they have a well-rounded human being residing inside. Tony Blair, if anything, case proven m'lud....

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th December 2015, 10:42 PM

well-worded, well-reminded. I look forward to next year's cabinet releases and see what other gems reside inside. Hopefully some really juicy ones to embarrass the unembarrassable...

Posted by: Qassändra 31st December 2015, 02:55 AM

What'd be that evidence - that they share your politics to a degree?

Posted by: popchartfreak 31st December 2015, 08:20 AM

No, that they share a concern and awareness about all people, not just the selfish rich ones who pay for their political campaigns or have mutual business interests. We can all argue about how to achieve fairness in society (there is no easy answer), and there are plenty of genuine local councillors on all sides who do, but the ones who just pay lip service to society while pursuing selfish motives (like Mr Letwin) need outing at every opportunity for what they are. They are currently running the country and causing long-term havoc, while the Labour Party seem happier to make pronouncements on individuals in the government (which is fair enough) to the exclusion of the actual policies and effects (which is not fair enough). Where's Corbyn, why isn't he giving press interviews about what the Tories are doing and shouting about it, that's his actual main job!?! That is what his supporters elected him for, and he's off on TV riding his bike or saying he's not bothered by pressure.

Clearly....

Posted by: popchartfreak 31st December 2015, 02:59 PM

They're coming thick n fast over the holidays. It appears that the era of banker bashing is now officially over. There will be no more fca enquiry into banter behaviour. The bank levy is dropped no one has been brought to task for anything they did. They can't find a new head of the fca after sacking the one hired to get tough with banks.

Rumours that HSBC threatening to leave the UK following rumours of tax irregularities and general unhappiness with the bank levy suggest the treasury has caved in.

This government does the quickest u turns in history they really didn't like all those nasty Libdem policies did they..,?

It also demonstrates who's REALLY running the country

Posted by: Qassändra 31st December 2015, 07:05 PM

Ah, so the answer is yes - that they share your politics to a degree. I disagree with them strongly, but the Conservatives have plenty of policies they could use to justify themselves on 'sharing a concern and awareness about all people' - just by different political means to the ones you would use.

But also in general, banning any one from politics on the basis of background (subject to vague tests or otherwise) is pretty shoddy. Once you've got the precedent...

Posted by: popchartfreak 31st December 2015, 08:34 PM

Oh I agree entirely, it's not remotely practical, desirable, or ever going to happen in any shape or form, and Conservatives can have helpful policies, but Tories - the ones I rant about - tend to favour the rich over the poor and I'm always going to slag them off because the poor (who can equally be just as myopic) aren't in positions where they can do (much) damage.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st January 2016, 10:22 PM

The Tories continue to explore new depths of shamelessness. Two years ago, they started claiming to have increased spending on flood defences. They were criticised at the time for misusing data. Undeterred, they are still at it. The National Audit Office and the House of Commons Library have both published figures contradicting them, but they continue to repeat the lie. Clearly, they believe the old adage that repeating a lie enough times will make it true.

The figures the Tories like to quote include emergency funding to clear up after flooding. Adding that to the flood defence budget is rather like adding some of the money spent by A&E departments to the road safety budget and claiming to have increased it.

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st January 2016, 11:13 PM

That's the great thing about quoting statistics to support a viewpoint. Hire a consultant to spin things, mix n match, ignore inconvenient facts, and then just repeat ad nauseum. Modern politics is based on it....not to mention sacking anyone that points out inconvenient truths. You probably know all of the inconvenient local truths, but the New Year may prove mildly interesting at some stage...

Posted by: popchartfreak 7th January 2016, 06:38 PM

oh dear I'm at it again, sorry! Just thought I'd provide a helpful rewrite to George Osbourne's speech today:

"Don't Panic! Don't Panic! Vote for me! We need more cuts! Vote For Me! I lied when I said before the election that it was working and everything was hunky dory, it isn't at all, the debt and borrowing is still HUGE and it's not shifting no matter how much we slash and burn! You can't trust anyone else to sort this out, vote for me! Don't Panic, Mr Mainwaring"

Hope that helped. Perhaps if the banks paid back the 100billion plus they still owe things might ease off a bit on the people who didn't get into debt and have been supporting financially all those who did for 8 years now. Just a thought....

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th January 2016, 07:04 PM

I was going to comment on Osborne's speech as well. It can be summed up as "Things are about to go tits up, but it's not my fault".

For some reason, events happening outside the UK will have an impact on our economy. Isn't it strange that, in Osborne's world, apparently outside events had no impact all when Gordon Brown was in charge?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th January 2016, 09:52 PM

This wouldn't have anything to do with government borrowing about to massively miss their 2015/16 target would it?

When falling oil price (due to slowing global demand) = cheaper petrol. Good news, the Tories are fantastic at saving you money at the pump.
When falling oil price (due to slowing global demand) = stalling GDP and increased government spending/deficit. Bad news, Johnny Foreigner is ruining our economy.

Posted by: popchartfreak 8th January 2016, 01:17 PM

The Tories have always been schizophrenic over Johnny Foreigner. he's to blame for all of our ills (except those that Labour caused with the full Tory support) especially those nasty poorer Johnny Foreigners, but the rich ones who want to buy up UK plc and export profits and jobs abroad, or be based abroad, or buy property and drive up prices so much as to be unaffordable for most of us are doing a marvellous job. Absolutely essential to the future wellbeing of the UK.

Not doing so well so far, eh, Tory boys and girls, unless you see getting rid of annoying benefit dependant folk, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, the depressed on a one by one basis as they shuffle off this mortal coil after feeling abandoned by society. Which, obviously, they do see as an ongoing success with worse to come as people can't ignore the services that are no longer available from local councils.

Such a good thing we have a great Opposition to shout this loudly above the cycling to the allotment for a gentle afternoon's jam-making.....

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th January 2016, 03:30 PM

So, demonising young Doctors and imposing conditions. Just like local government staff. The main difference is Doctors can move elsewhere once qualified, somewhere with better wages, so this is really a totally pointless attempt to save a bit of cash with no thought (as usual) for the long-term consequences (or understanding of the additional costs that a 6 or 7-day week would bring quite apart from saving cash on doctors who already work long hours). What a Jeremy Hunt!

Of course, I would seriously LOVE to see a FOI request on how many Tory MP's actually use the NHS, as opposed to paying for private care from already-qualified and pricey doctors who spend half the week on the golf-course.... assuming of course the emotionless robots actually need medical care rather than IT assistance and re-booting.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2016, 03:38 PM

On the subject of the doctors' dispute, Hunt has shown his usual disregard for the truth. He quoted the number of junior doctors working yesterday (38%) in an attempt to dismiss the strike as a failure. His figure included junior doctors who were working in emergency care, i.e. doctors who were not expected to strike yesterday. If the next strike goes ahead, expect Hunt to produce a list of dead doctors who were not on strike as further evidence of how the strike call is being ignored.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th January 2016, 06:59 PM

just watched the Tory Propaganda Broadcast, glib, slick and a sly way of saying look we promised you a fab 7-days-NHS and digging at those ungrateful Junior Doctors. What they don't say, of course, is mention all of the broken promises and lies as listed on this thread. Which they are not delivering, have no intention of delivering, and have no intention of mentioning.

So that's another lie then.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2016, 08:21 PM

This promise of a "7 day NHS" is a nonsense anyway. Large parts of the NHS already operate seven days per week. There have been claims that some people are so convinced that they won't be able to get treatment at the weekend that they delay seeing anybody until Monday.

Posted by: Qassändra 13th January 2016, 08:48 PM

Because not mentioning 'we've not kept our promises in other areas' is something any party (or person) *ever* would mention if they were doing a broadcast on a particular policy?! This is entering Holden Caulfield levels of obnoxiousness.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th January 2016, 09:11 PM

Think my comments are fair given they are being hypocritical and using the platform for blatant propaganda, not a useful summary of all they have achieved so far and a reason to vote for them (which, admittedly, is virtually nothing of positive electioneering use after 8 miserable months). They said nothing which the PM couldnt have blanded out in any interview any time he feels like it. Of course, I have said many times before, I could adopt the Labour Party mantra and say nothing constructive, do nothing constructive, just moan about other party members a bit instead...

I do not respect dishonesty, whichever party is peddling it. I think the electorate would largely agree with that sentiment...

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2016, 09:33 PM

For me, the real issue with election promises is whether the party made that promise despite having no intention of delivering on it. While some Lib Dems (notably Nick Clegg), had reservations about the tuition fees policy, I don't think they intended to renege on it within months of the election. On the other hand, the Tories' "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS" promise was a blatant lie. The same applied to their promise not to allow tracking in SSSIs.

The same applies to things governments do that were not in the manifesto. Obviously, there will be occasions when a government can claim that circumstances have changed since the election. However, in the first year, it is hard to excuse introducing significant new clauses to legislation as the Tories have down with their new rules on council tenancies.

Posted by: popchartfreak 20th January 2016, 03:04 PM

2 issues I don't recall being election promises, and to be fair, one is one I don't necessarily disagree with (that'll be the pension tax relief changes to a more universal percentage for everyone, hitting the better off Tory voters - eh?! Surely shome mishtake!).

T'other is the final nail in the coffin of further education for the poor and disadvantaged. They now how to borrow cash like everyone else, put themselves in potential debt or actual debt and avoid the best most-expensive uni's to attend those will let them get a less-than-average-wage career in local government (like me) where you never earn enough to have to pay back the debts. It's sort of like a guaranteed well-educated underclass to ensure the best-paid jobs go to the offspring of the rich, and therefore the more important members of society.

A bit like the new academy system will create massive mega-schools as the schools realise the money they get, once the staff have given themselves generous rises, won't actually cover things like, oh, building repairs, insurance, consultancy fees etc and get taken over by increasingly big factory farming schools. The private ones, of course, will still be marvellous.

At least that's how I see the scenario unfolding over the next 10 years until the next Labour Gov takes all schools back in house again as they realise too many free school nutters have harmed a generation of kids prospects and too many school buildings are starting to fall down from lack of maintenance. I could be wrong, I suggest coming back in 2025 or 2030 depending on when Labour get credible again.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th January 2016, 04:31 PM

And, to make it worse, the government haven't introduced the changes to student finance by the old-fashioned way of a piece of legislation. That would mean having to debate it in parliament which would never do. So, it is being introduced by ministerial decree, thereby ensuring it gets as little scrutiny as possible. We wouldn't want those pesky Lords getting in the way, would we?

My biggest fear with the academies is that some of these companies running them will go bust, or decide they don't want to be involved any more. What happens to the schools then? Not that it matters much really. They are only used to educate plebs' children anyway.

Posted by: popchartfreak 20th January 2016, 07:21 PM

Round Bournemouth underperforming schools get taken over by performing (private) schools looking at a bit of extra cash injection. What they do with it remains to be seen in the long run, but at least one troibled school in Poole has no 6th formers - they've opted to go elsewhere. There's a free school set up in a former town centre council block of offices has moved to Bournemouth Airport - the school run for that one should be very interesting.

I'm sure by now you've read with some amusement the local Tory announcements summarising what a successful job they have done:

Having successfully saved an alleged 10m pounds (unsubstantiated by any actual published figures) the badly-written contract with a private contractor with staff transferred under TUPE (alleged, because it's confidential, but it was written fairly quickly - in far less time than I spent working on a water-tight contract for Bournemouth Parks in the 80's) which then went bankrupt immediately (as warned by the senior staff doing their job, who were sacked for having the temerity to do the job they were contracted to do) has been terminated now they need to join with Poole Council and chop some jobs they otherwise couldn't chop (sorry, I mean rationalise via merger) while the staff are employed privately and they have achieved all they can achieve partnered with the private sector. Apparently 175 jobs (or 177 according to the same press release) have been created in the private sector. I'd love to know where they are working, and what on, as my maths regarding bums -on-seats must be very very faulty (above and beyond the existing transferred staff who still reside at the Town Hall).

Some wags have suggested that future partners have been of the "bargepole, wouldn't, I, with, it, touch a" opinion. I couldn't comment on this. Other wags have suggested the new Council be called Pournemouth, PooChurchBo or Greater Bournemouth (Incorporating Christchurch and Poole).

The Bank Of Bournemouth has also been wound down after a very successful couple of years. I spluttered and guffawed when I heard about the proposals 2 or 3 years ago, but I really do have egg on my face now, eh? Tch!

Maybe we need a "local government" thread to highlight all of the helpful decisions all councils make (and so avoid party bias)...

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th February 2016, 01:13 PM

The government has been sending out very confusing signals over the tax deal with Google whereby the highly profitable company has paid just £130 million to cover their tax bill for the last ten years. When it was first announces, Osborne claimed that it was a greats victory for the government, particularly for himself.

Sadly for Gideon, it soon became apparent that the ungrateful public were less than impressed with the deal, so the government story changed. Suddenly, it was nothing to do with the government. All those meetings between Treasury ministers and Google executives were clearly about something else entirely.

The story has continued to unravel. First, any claim that the deal had anything to do with Osborne's so-called "Google Tax" was soon debunked. The total amount paid as a result of that change was precisely nothing. Then it emerged that the £130 million wasn't just a tax on profits. A quarter of it was connected to a share option scheme, leaving them having paid under £100 million in tax on profits over a ten year period. Nobody has yet commented on whether that sum includes interest. After all, some of the money will have been outstanding for ten years.

In the meantime, Osborne was at the Superbowl last night. Ah well, you might say, how he spends his money is up to him. That would be true if he had indeed spent his own money, but he didn't. It was paid for by an American company. Which company? Google.

Posted by: popchartfreak 8th February 2016, 09:17 PM

Michael Gove has also been getting free tickets to football matches from Russian Oligarchs. Had I, a humble employee of local government, accepted bribes from the private sector (this is how they are viewed as we might be swayed when handing out contracts) I would be sacked.

Hypocrites, and they are of course, not swayed remotely by all the freebies when handing out contracts and collecting tax. According to Private Eye, several rightwing press former reporters are now BS peddlers for No. 10 and Duncan-Smith, while Georgie Porgie had 8 meetings with Rupert Murdoch over the last 2 years. Talk about all in it together.

As much as the former senior bankers are. Having gotten away with murder and world economic devastation from their incompetency and idiocy and blind selfishness, half of 'em now have jobs with all of the "new" banks created in the UK, while the fool in charge of watching the banks in the Labour Party in 2001-2004 has been appointed non-exec Director of the FCA.

They all continue to peddle the corporate "no-one could have predicted it" line. Yes they could. They did. The Big Short shows a few smart young men looking into the dodgy dealings pre-bust could see what was going on. So either they are geniuses or the entire banking sector are morons. Or liars. Or corrupt. The young men do not work for the investment banks. Too smart, presumably.....

(PS, according to the film, they all knew what was going on, they were all just in thrall to the banks. How things have changed.)

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th February 2016, 11:06 PM

Well, Cameron has shown his total lack of class again with his infantile attack on whether Corbyn's tie is done up properly. Somebody needs to remind this idiot that he has a referendum to win. In that referendum, he will need the support of a lot of voters who have never voted Tory. He might wish to think about whether today's antics will have done anything to make that more likely.

Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 11:09 PM

AND saying he needs a new suit.

The BBC and other Tory propaganda outlets of course focused on the suit comment and not the claims of him selling off the NHS...

I loved Corbyn's response: who dresses offensively, me or a man who dresses in suits which cost more than how much ill people are expected to live off a year.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 25th May 2016, 04:12 PM

In 2010 George Osborne and the Treasury predicted surplus in 2015/2016.

In 2015/2016, new figures out today show that there was a deficit of £76bn.

Anybody who believes ANY of the figures that either the treasury or this government predict for the next 5 years is seriously going against all logic IMO! Quite simply our debt driven service economy is well passed its use by date, and given another technical manufacturing recession, wage growth stagnation and record emergency interest rates (despite what the BoE tell us constantly for 2 years is at risk of going up - it won't) for the seventh consecutive year of 0.5%, I don't expect much to change in the next 5 years let alone a surplus by 2019/2020!!

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th May 2016, 06:24 PM

Too right. Industry is not supported, and bankers are worshipped. When they bugger off to Europe that's the UK down the tube. We could always, y'know, build shitloads of much-needed houses (though we'd need to employ foreign builders) to boost the economy once the banks have pissed off...oh that's right we can't because the ones on life-support (still) are the British banks and any house-price drop will cause them to plummet even deeper into debt while mortgage-owners having a cushy time of it being supported by taxpayers artificially for nearly a decade will start pouting and vote for someone else.

Contrary to any statements made since 2008, the economy is not healthy and robust, things are not improving and the death by a thousand cuts is gradual and stealthy. On the plus side, the increasing death rate from increasing NHS cutbacks and failures, and suicides from the mentally ill or depressed or addicted should free up a few more houses for wealthy foreigners to buy to rent out 4 to a room.

Do I sound cynical? Oh.

Nah, it'll all be fine, nothing to worry about, let our glorious leaders do what they do best, I think of them as Gods

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st June 2016, 06:49 PM

This comment is as a result of the EU campaign, but it almost completely applies to Tory Party and UKIP members - other party members seem relatively sane in comparison to the outrageous lies, promises that can't be fulfilled by the peddlars, twists and distortions of fact.

Now, I have always had a very low opinion of politicians in general, and Tory MP's in particular, but the EU campaign has shown that there is nothing they won't say to win. They even slag off their own party members, facts, figures and opposing views, and will create monsters out of anyone that they think will help the cause.

ESPECIALLY the Leave campaign members.

So, from this moment onwards, there is nothing that any Tory politician can ever say that will ever be believed again: As shown in their own infighting, they are liars. They don't trust official figures, so why should anyone trust any figures they throw out. They say their fellow Tory Party members are liars, so why should we non-Tory people believe that anything any of them say ever again isn't a lie.

Anyone who now believes a single thing they say, right now, is a fool. So, the question is, whatever the outcome of the vote, will we now just see them as liars for decades to come?

Posted by: popchartfreak 14th July 2016, 08:50 PM

Its a new Tory era, a new kinder world.

Today: louise mensch slags off mercilessly a father waiting for a major operation for his son because he thought hunt had gone. The operation was cancelled again. She didnt apologise.

Pm may appoints liam fox to head the very dept he resigned in disgrace from for taking trade related cushies.

Racist boris johnson heads forrign affairs, gets booed at his first meeting at the french embassy. I love the french.

Theres still a bit of a hunt about.

Leadsome is a climate change ignoramus and loves fox hunting. Makes sense she gets environment.

David davis tweeted lots of in dpth knowledge of how the uk can do individual deals on trade with italy poland etc. He so dumb, duhhhhhhh! Trade natch.

May has certainly shown everyone that shes against the establishment and for the poor then.

We are totally f***ed you know....

Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 14th July 2016, 08:56 PM

We just need Corbyn in power!

Posted by: Rooney 15th July 2016, 01:15 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andrea-leadsom_uk_5788a201e4b08078d6e8699c?edition=uk

Andrea Leadsom Says It Is ‘Sensible’ Not To Let Men Look After Children As They May Be Paedophiles

Andrea Leadsom has said it would be “sensible” for parents not to employ a male nanny to look after their children because he could be a paedophile.

The former Tory leadership candidate, who was yesterday appointed environment secretary by Theresa May, made the comment during the infamous Times interview which is credited with sinking her leadership ambitions


“As an employer we’re not, let’s face it, most of us don’t employ men as nannies, most of us don’t,” she told the paper.

“Now you can call that sexist, I call that cautious and very sensible when you look at the stats.

“Your odds are stacked against you if you employ a man. We know paedophiles are attracted to working with children. I’m sorry but they’re the facts.”


The Times released the comments today having not included them in a previous front page story in which Leadsom suggested she would be a better prime minister than May as she had children.

Tim Farron, the leader of the Lib Dems, said Leadsom “has let yet another of her masks slip”.

“These remarks are stupid, ignorant and not ones any minister should be making. Over the last day Theresa May has shown she is willing to relieve ministers of their duties and she must do so again now,” he said.

“It is inconceivable that somebody who holds such offensive, ignorant views should be sat around the cabinet table.”

Leadsom told The Times that being a mother “means you have a very real stake in the future of our country” but insisted she was not trying to make it an issue in the Tory leadership election.

She dropped out of the race against May a few days later.

Yesterday, the new prime minister moved to sweep away many David Cameron and George Gideon Oliver Osborne, son of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon and Felicity Alexandra Loxton-Peacock, educated at St. Paul's and Magdalen College, Oxford loyalists.

May’s spokesperson insisted the Cabinet shake-up was “bold” and necessary after she dismissed Osborne, f***witted Pob lookalike Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Nicky Morgan and John Whittingdale.


Labour said the promotion of a string of right-wingers contradicted Mrs May’s “warm words” on her entry into 10 Downing Street about seeking to govern “not for a privileged few, but for every one of us”.

Scary to think this nutjob could have been running the country

Posted by: Qween 15th July 2016, 03:36 PM

It was probably those CHOICE words that convinced her/those supporting her to pack it in. What a spectacularly stupid and ill informed thing to say.

Posted by: popchartfreak 19th July 2016, 08:20 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA

http://news.sky.com/story/us-media-puts-boris-on-spot-over-obama-comments-10506384

Meanwhile mrs may has already proven her speech was a lie - thats her only speech - by not backing british success against foreign takeovers while the pound is hit. Microchips prob not her strength.

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th July 2016, 09:55 PM

That record time from speech to contradictory action will take some beating. Still, I'm sure there's a Tory out there who can manage it.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 19th July 2016, 10:04 PM

It was pretty great (but also incredibly cringeworthy) watching Boris squirm in that press conference today - can see now why Theresa put him there: he is totally out of his comfort zone and was really struggling. LOVE IT. (Although I appreciate he is making the UK look even more of an laughing stock than we already were - worth it though).

Wonder how long he will last.

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st July 2016, 11:51 AM

Yes....

Some people seem to think it's OK to make racist remarks akin to using the N word, referring to gollywogs, questioning parentage and motives, for years on end, and that it's all fine because...


Trust Me I'm A Journalist, It's What We Do, No Harm Done.

Well, apart from Leaving the EU, toppling his own party leaders, lying to the electorate, being a pawn of newspaper tycoon billionaires, a serial adulterer, fathering children outside marriage, doing dodgy building contribution deals for his mates while Mayor, making the UK look stupid and racist to the rest of the world who we now need to love us, what's not to love about the amiable buffoon...

Oh he's so funny and loveable, in the same sort of way that a Bond Villain aiming to destroy the world is funny and loveable. Having a smile on your face means you can say anything to anyone and do anything to anyone and it's all OK, cos no harm meant.

PS, just in case it's not obvious, I hate the immoral, lying, cold-hearted, rich git.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th August 2016, 08:12 PM

Just in case you were in any doubt, there is further evidence today that Cameron has no sense of shame. He has already bowed out with a resignation honours list packed with peerages for leading Tory donors to add to those he created at a record rate while he was in Downing Street. We also know that he awarded his special advisers six months' pay instead of the contractual four months' pay when they lest their jobs in July. He did that despite very strong advice from senior civil servants.

Today it has been revealed that those same special advisers received pay increases of over 20% shortly before they lost their jobs, thereby increasing the size of their pay-off even further.

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th August 2016, 08:46 PM

Meanwhile, it's the same in local gov for those at the top getting hush money for being hatchet men, while the low-paid workers get shafted, are loathed by the population at large, take pay cuts, have terms & conditions changed at a whim, jobload doubled, staff halved, and despite having "gold-plated pensions" (apparently) there is still a recruitment problem of professionals for job vacancies. Wonder why....

Any Uni leavers planning on a career in local government? Thought not....

Posted by: popchartfreak 15th September 2016, 06:16 AM

At last the BBC has done a spot of reporting on reality - as opposed to trying to present both sides to an argument that is one-sided and clear-cut:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37364797

I could have (and have) told everybody this has been going on for years. Anyone who votes to pay less tax and for the Tories condones this crisis. If I sound bitter it's because I am - I am utterly exhausted 24 hours a day looking after two very ailing parents and trying to work a full-time job in reduced hours (that's less money for me, my wages were cut anyway even beforehand) with no back-up. This has been going on for years and each year it gets worse.

I don't actually blame Councils totally, they aren't the ones who have forbidden to increase rates and had government cash cut. They are now having to become super-councils to try and offer economies of scale (ie less staff) and those have gone the private-cash route have found that it's actually more expensive for a worse service (I speak on behalf of my own very very Tory Council who say one thing publicly and prove this with their actions taking back services in house - with less staff).

It can't be long before this Tory government introduces the same policies as Switzerland, Dignitas. Only it won't be voluntary. "Sorry, no cash left to support you sweetie. It would be better for everyone if you stopped selfishly clinging to life and we're helping you to do that because we care so much."

Care so much about their investments in offshore banking accounts that is.

Posted by: Qassändra 15th September 2016, 04:06 PM

Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 22nd October 2016, 10:50 AM

On Thursday Sam Gyimah as a Justice Minister re-tweeted his support for the new Turing Law due to be debated on Friday:

... and then on Friday the bill was talked out by Conservative MP and Justice Minister Sam Gyimah.

Posted by: Silas 22nd October 2016, 11:32 AM

Talked out so an SNP bill wouldn't hit statue books. f***ing disgrace

Posted by: Soy Adrián 22nd October 2016, 11:47 AM

I doubt it was about the party proposing it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd October 2016, 12:07 PM

Theresa May's Tories - governing for all of the country (unless you are gay).

Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd October 2016, 06:43 PM

Or Poor. Or a Remainer. Or are against Tax Dodging British Territories. Or disabled on Benefits. Or homeless. Or have Alzheimers. Or working in the UK legally in low-paid jobs. Or foreign doctors in the NHS. Or believe in a fair society rather than just pay lip service for sound bites.

Quite likely to be more disastrous than Thatcher based on what she has so far said and done, and in a much shorter time frame. That's impressive whichever way you look at it. Unless she's just talking BS of course to keep the Right-Wing Press on board.

Posted by: popchartfreak 9th November 2016, 11:01 AM

Time for an update. It's a good news week to keep a low profile.

The Nissan deal (which is suspected to have given tax-payer-backed incentives to stay in the UK) is under scrutiny by Brussels - that would anti-competitive, and we still are a member of the EU. Basically, foreign companies are happy to stay here as long the tax payer guarantees they wont lose money after Brexit. That's the message it sends out...

India: May has returned with her dozens of officials with a dose of reality. One of the top Commonwealth countries, who do 2% of their trade with the UK, has made it perfectly clear that they regard the UK as racist, has no need to do deals with a country with nothing to sell except expertise, and who is intending to stop foreign students and the like who choose to train in the UK from staying beyond their visa.

So. Important countries lining up to do deals with the UK post-Brexit:

1. Errr none.

So, our unelected PM, with a cabinet made up of Brexiteers, and trying to pull a fast one on British democratic processes by ignoring British Parliament and not supporting the British Independent legal system when it needed it, giving in to mob mentality, has yet to say what she intends to do, how she intends to achieve it, and how long it's going to take.

Democracy in under attack.

Posted by: Rooney 20th November 2016, 01:06 PM

Interested to see the full contents of the Autumn budget. In a brave move, the Tories could be pissing off a lot of the middle class swing voters by cutting salary sacrifices.

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st November 2016, 12:58 PM

May has backpeddled on another lie - forcing firms to have employees on the boards. So much for the Workers then.

One by one all of her useless platitudes and vagueness are being replaced by Same Old Same Old Tory priorities. Help The Rich, Hit The Poor.

Given the financial apocalypse of 100b black hole in the UK finances and her promises of a marvellous Brave New World (no details on how) her generous cuts to business rates and higher tax evaders (I mean earners) look a little unsustainable right now.

Perhaps if she targeted billionaires in British territory offshore accounts, internet megacorps tax dodgers, and so on we could all give her the benefit of the doubt.

Instead we have promises of helping new start-ups - we saw how that went tits up last time when banks recklessly loaned money. In principle, anyone with a winning idea should be able to get a bank loan. If they can't then the governemnt is playing roulette with tax payer cash.

The 2b for science and development sounds suspiciously like replacing Brexit inward cash for like, as opposed to an exciting new gift. Colour me cynical. Colour me right.

Posted by: popchartfreak 21st January 2017, 10:23 AM

Filibustering in progress from Philip Davies, a man who talks to kill bills that he personally doesn't like but which would otherwise pass.

Democracy in action from Tories..

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/822444158715564037


--------------------

reposted here as this thread needs pushing up the list, it's going to get very busy over the next 4 years..

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th January 2017, 12:35 PM

As part of their attempt to explain why they covered up the failed Trident missile test the government has claimed that they never comment on missile tests. This is a lie. Past governments (Tory and Labour) have frequently commented on such tests. They have often been used as a photo-opportunity for ministers. As defence secretary Michael Fallon made this claim in the Commons, it is time for him to resign.

Posted by: popchartfreak 24th January 2017, 12:45 PM

one report claims that it was due to Obama asking the Brit Gov not to publicise it (if this is true shame on him, if it isn't true shame on the reporters) as the "incident" is claimed to be due to American IT technology going faulty in American weapons off the American coast, and heading towards Florida.

I have an image of Trump hitting the Red Button and tons of nuclear missiles all going haywire and landing on Florida. I won't be holidaying in Florida for at least 4 years.....!

Posted by: Soy Adrián 24th January 2017, 01:05 PM

That really would be the final insult for Jeb Bush.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2017, 11:27 AM

After showing her desperation by becoming the first foreign leader to go grovelling to Trump, Theresa May will be visiting Turkey to speak the their increasingly authoritarian president Erdogan. When asked if she would be raising Turkey's human rights record (which is getting steadily worse under Erdogan), her spokeswoman said that May would state her views "if the subject came up". Anyone want to guess how likely it is that Erdogan will raise the subject?

Meanwhile the USA have demonstrated just how "special" they thunk the relationship with the UK is. You might think that, faced with a name like Theresa, officialdom would make sure they got the spelling and pronunciation right. Er, no. The White House briefing note spelt her name without the H and Trump pronounced the middle syllable as Ray. That all smacks of "Let's get this tiresome visit out of the way asap an move on to something more important".

Posted by: popchartfreak 28th January 2017, 02:44 PM

Yes, Theresa May demonstrating how important it is that we turn out backs on democratic friends and shack up with right-wing fascists - having had a campaign against Turkey in the Referendum (which was never going to join, being as they aren't democratic).

The USA has now been downgraded from "Democracy" to "Flawed Democracy". Turkey has prob been downgraded to "turkey"...

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th January 2017, 10:20 PM

a good news day to bury nasty news releases...

NHS cuts:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-cuts-spending-policies-theresa-may-jeremy-hunt-tories-labour-lib-dems-a7549686.html

Posted by: Queen LeQueefa 29th January 2017, 10:41 PM

Wait what?

And the more they make cuts, the more this 'crisis' emerges. There is only a crisis because they are underfunding it on purpose!

Posted by: popchartfreak 30th January 2017, 07:46 PM

So, over a million opinions is just "populism" says the childless lonely old woman of Westminster. One of the biggest populist examples on the government website then, in that case. If only she'd had a child she might have learned the value of warmth, love and humanity.

She has no fixed morals. No principles. They sway in the political wind. Her true colours are coming out week by week, day by day.

Trump wanted to f*** Princess Diana, and spread Kate's tits around to make cash - why not just ask the Royal Family if they want to entertain him? The Queen is perfectly capable of expressing an opinion on Brexit (against the constitution) so should be a piece of piss to offer advice to the unelected increasingly-dictatorial leader of the UK.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th January 2017, 08:07 PM

I'm sorry, but that first paragraph is crossing the line a little bit. Regardless of what you think of Theresa May, she's spoken publically about her heartache about not being able to have children. Let's not forget that Andrea Leadsom's leadership campaign was derailed for making similar references.

Your anger at Theresa May is understandable given everything, but I hope you will withdraw those remarks.

Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2017, 09:44 AM

Sorry but this argument is fucking disgusting.

Posted by: popchartfreak 31st January 2017, 12:56 PM

Gone too far? I did. Apologise? Don't think so. Speaking as someone who suffers personally at the hands of her governments ongoing life-threatening decisions - let's take today's headlines about looking after our elderly as an example. I already look after my own elderly parents, with NO help from the State of significance, as does every other person that I know of in that situation who has to deal with alzheimers, heart attacks and a full-time job with less people and months of backlog. Short of stopping sleeping to try and do even more, it's not physically possible to do even more.

This government is shifting the blame onto families, when it's their inhuman and cruel policies that are fault. We are already struggling, and as they cut more and kill more people off by their actions they are truly evil and loathesome. I despise Theresa May and her bland platitudes, saying one thing and cold-heartedly doing another. Ambulances will now take 2 hours locally to get to hospitals (5 minutes drive away), Councils have been hammered, after care is useless and bed-blocking is going on thanks to that.

As head of the government she would rather support anti-democratic right-wing borderline fascist politics rather than do things to help her own citizens, or listen to them. She is a cold-hearted woman, no matter what she has said about the heartache of being childless. Loads of us who love children are childless (err hello!) that doesn't mean you have to use it as a means of getting sympathy nor use at is a means of arguing your opponent is cold because of it. She isn't cold because of it, I accept that. She's cold because of her inherant nature as demonstrated in all she does and says.

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st February 2017, 02:13 PM

in light of my earlier unkind remarks about Theresa May, I thought I'd offers some advice for the poor heartaching dear, based on examples taken from my friends and colleagues, none of whom have gone public about their personal heartbreaks:

there's my friend of 40 years standing, who having brought up her children alone, has gone down the route of fostering and adoption, on her own, in her late 50's, with the full support of her family. She loves her adopted children dearly.

there's my work colleague in his late 50's, and not in the best of health, who with his wife have experienced the joy of given a home to an adopted little girl from a difficult background, and work hard to keep her happy.

There's me, lived with my brother's children when they were toddlers for 2 years, and have the joy of having children that are both related and unrelated around me, pretty much my whole life non-stop. I'm going on holiday with my niece, who I took on holiday when she was 5, and am now doing the same for her family and 3-year-old, and her 50-something childless friend who loves my great nephew to bits.

So, rather than spend a life bemoaning what you don't have, it's rather easy (especially when you have shitloads of money for nannies and private schools) to experience the joy of children.

Self-pitying, sympathy-grabbing PR jobs are not needed, all you need to do is accept that it's possible to dearly love children who haven't sprung from your own loins. These options have been all her life, and still are, available to the Prime Minister. The last Prime Minister coped with having children. So did the one before that.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st February 2017, 04:41 PM

I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying the last Prime Minister coped with anything.

Posted by: Qassändra 1st February 2017, 05:12 PM

What the fuck? She hardly spent a life bemoaning what she doesn't have. She seems whenever mentioned to have been quite reserved about it. She certainly hasn't come across as someone trying to actively solace sympathy or weeping about what a hard time she's had, and you couldn't even begin to know if it's something her and her husband have discussed. You're coming off as a complete cock with this line of very personalised and presumptive argument, in honesty.

Posted by: Silas 1st February 2017, 06:08 PM

Mate it's time to admit you overstepped and withdraw not double down. As much of an evil c**t May is, that's way beyond the realms of reasonable and fair. It's such a sensitive issue that causes a lot of pain for those it affects. The things you've said are just some of the paths and one of those paths is not to adopt or anything because it may cause you too much heartache. It also encroaches deeply into a private life we really know nothing about. Auntie Theresa could be the hit of the family reunion with the kids and tbh it's f***ing irrelevant if she is or isn't.

I think she's a vile human, no one who comes out with some of her quotes is a nice human being, but let's stick to using her policies and xenophobic rhetoric as the metaphorical stick to beat her with. No need to stoop to their level

Posted by: popchartfreak 1st February 2017, 09:40 PM

All true comments. All very personal and I should be ashamed at stooping to the level of the rags who do hatchet jobs on everyone they don't agree with (and her colleagues), especially when I can't disagree with anything said.

Posted by: Suedehead2 26th February 2017, 03:02 PM

At a time when some Tories are claiming that they are no longer the nasty party, others are determined to demonstrate that they are actually nastier than ever...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/25/afghanistan-gay-asylum-seekers-home-office-illegal-homosexuality

Posted by: Doctor Blind 11th July 2017, 04:25 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40571123

Conservatives have 'no plan' for no deal (no deal is better than a bad deal © Theresa May, 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40555639

Newton Abbot MP Anne Marie Morris suspended from the Conservative party for using racist remarks at a panel event discussing Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/22/conservative-party-call-centre-may-have-broken-election-law

Conservative party call centre 'may have broken election law'

Posted by: popchartfreak 12th July 2017, 08:25 AM

Boris The Toff is a privately-educated moron. Every time he opens his mouth he shows himself up to be a fool. Like Lord Of The Ciggie Manor Rees-Mogg he's not funny, loveable and amiable in any way. He is dangerous. Having slashed London fire services as Mayor ("get stuffed" to criticism of that move) and lambasted the EU for decades, and made ludicrous promises about Leaving the EU (being the primary vote-campaigner for the result), none of which have any remote possibility of coming true - Tory party statements and policies have proven this - he shows his utter thick-headedness by pompously making stands that will badly affect the people of the UK who will suffer from leaving the EU, and are already suffering from the inflationary pound-drop and increasing prices but not wages.

He can't ever admit he was wrong, and is a fool, so like Trump he just digs his heels in and shouts a bit louder when confronted with facts and reason that he has lied about from day one. He should listen to his sister, she obviously got the brains in his family.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th July 2017, 03:36 PM

Why single out just the Tories, though?

Posted by: popchartfreak 19th July 2017, 07:03 PM

errr....they are the government with the job to make it a success. Other politicians are irrelevant onlookers unless the Tories collapse and Labour get in, or force them to accept changes to their plan (whatever that is).

Posted by: vidcapper 20th July 2017, 09:08 AM

I assume you mean 'running the country' rather than 'spreading lies & deceit'.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd July 2017, 02:56 PM

Why indeed...

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jul/23/jeremy-corbyn-denies-promising-to-wipe-student-debts

So much for the 'fully costed' manifesto...

Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd July 2017, 06:46 PM

Corbyn's manifesto was never going to be 100% - too many wish lists on it to be accurate. Though they did at least give a few more details than the Tories. As in, any details at all would have been nice.

For example, the small detail of extending the retirement age, bringing it forward 8 years may have helped people make up their mind who to vote for. Not mentioned at all. Yet here we are days later and it's law..

Posted by: vidcapper 24th July 2017, 05:52 AM

But which is worse - no details, or false details?

As for the retirement age, only someone whose been living in a cave wouldn't know about it being due for increase - that's been on the table for many years.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th July 2017, 07:35 AM

Yes, the increase has been on the table for years. However, do you really believe that they only decided to bring it forward by seven years in the last few weeks? Even if the final decision was only made in the last few weeks it will have been discussed for some time before that.

Before the 2015 election the Labour party wanted to submit their manifesto to the Office for Budget Responsibility for scrutiny. Osborme refused permission. Opposition party manifestos are always going to have some flaws unless the parties are able to call on the same resources as the governing party(ies). There is no excuse for a party which has been in power for seven years omitting any mention of how they proposed paying for their manifesto commitments. They also can't use the excuse "We knew things were bad, but we didn't realise quite how bad they were".

Perhaps parties should simply publish a manifesto that says "We will do stuff".

Posted by: MoistSummerFruit 24th July 2017, 07:43 AM

Here, here!!

If they do no have any details in ther manifesto, except some stuff for rich people like fox hunting, as it is 'jolly good fun', thrn ehat are people voting for?? Disgraceful.

Posted by: vidcapper 24th July 2017, 08:27 AM

ISTM it's more a case of what are they voting against...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 24th July 2017, 10:08 AM

Which is?

Posted by: vidcapper 24th July 2017, 01:35 PM

Against Labour, obviously.

Labour only win when they are not perceived as a financial threat - that's why Blair won in 1997.

Posted by: MoistSummerFruit 24th July 2017, 04:41 PM

Which is??

Tories are the same families that rules us as serfs.

Labour is about putting money and power back where it belongs.

Posted by: MoistSummerFruit 24th July 2017, 04:41 PM

Economy currently tankin under Tories, oops

Posted by: vidcapper 25th July 2017, 08:49 AM

Feudalism ended over 650 years ago - that's around 22 generations, so we'll all have 4,194,304 direct ancestors - wanna bet that *none* of them were feudal lords?

Wouldn't you agree that money & power belongs to those who earn it, rather than those who merely inherit it?



Please define 'tanking' in the current context.

Posted by: popchartfreak 25th July 2017, 11:37 AM

well i'll help...
nobody cares about dead rich people. It's the current ones who inherited wealth, and help each other to hang on to it, that are the problem. Almost entirely, that is the Tory party and supporters. They could easily pass legislation making it illegal to stash money overseas in offshore accounts, chase up those who do, and stop doing favors for those firms and individuals who "donate" to the cause.

Money is power, and powerful people run things. Poor people have no say unless they band together (while carefully not falling for the lies of the powerful). I include powerful, well-financed figures on the left and centre, though, as well, though they tend to be more socially-minded.

Tanking: BofE warning household debt is getting to dangerous 2007 levels again. Lowest growth rate of all 28 EU countries. Industries moving away from the UK (don't deny this, it's already happening). Pound at record lows, inflation creeping up while wages don't. Dozens of industry areas with no idea what will happen to their customer base after Brexit, especially those subsidised by the EU.

Fortunately I'm vegetarian so I won't have to eat chlorine-saturated chicken and hormone-stuffed beef from the good ol US of A (according to the unreliable and self-interested minister for doing dodgy deals). I'm sure there will plenty of cheap wheat though as Mexico has chosen to source it's produce from argentina rather then the USA, so at least we can get cheap loaves in the future, hopefully not too much GM messing about and pesticides on them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th September 2017, 05:00 PM

Theresa May has said that the Tories were caught off-guard by the calling of a snap election. No doubt she will be hading strong words with the person responsible for calling it just as soon as she finds out who it was.

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/09/theresa-may-says-tories-caught-off-guard-by-snap-election/

File under "You couldn't make it up".

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th September 2017, 05:04 PM

Can we invent impeachment proceedings so we can impeach this incompetent dipshit?

Posted by: Conderella 28th September 2017, 05:19 PM

My god they are vile.

Aristocrats beed down the lines from landed gentry.

And no, 600 years does NOT.equal millions of direct ancestors. At all.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th September 2017, 05:46 AM

Doesn't it?

2 parents
4 grandparents
8 great-grandparents, etc

600 years = roughly 20 generations, so we're talking 2^20 potential ancestors

Yes, eventually you reach a point way back where there were fewer people on the planet than the number of theoretical ancestors, so that virtually everyone is related to their partners in some very distant way, whether they are toffs or not.

Posted by: popchartfreak 29th September 2017, 07:19 AM

it doesnt quite work that way, we share many of the same ancestors before you go back far at all. We are all related, obviously because we are the same species, if you go back far enough.

That I may have had an ancestor who was filthy rich 700 years ago doesn't mean I have to in any way forgive the inherited generations of being rich who are self-interested rather than socially-minded. A stable and fair government and people who are not intent on revolution and killing all the rich people is the best way forward, plus looking after the people who allow them to have a society which creates or keeps wealth, should mean they have a sense of gratitude, not an inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement.

Plenty of (largely self-made) rich people campaign for the less-well-off and the needy. Those who don't are selfish and deserve no sympathy.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th September 2017, 09:28 AM

Your first point basically agrees with the last one of my previous post.

Selfishness is hardly confined to the rich though.

Posted by: commonsense 1st October 2017, 02:06 PM

Anyone watching the Tory conference, live on BBC Parliament? Today until Wednesday with May's speech on Wednesday at 11am.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st October 2017, 02:42 PM

Good god no but I work across from the highly fenced off venue

Posted by: commonsense 1st October 2017, 06:31 PM

Yes it's like a fortress they said. Unprecedented security checks on everyone.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st October 2017, 07:56 PM

Spotted a couple of snipers on nearby rooftops as well.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st October 2017, 10:53 PM

Back in the 1980s a Tory junior minister (Grey Gowrie) resigned because he din't think his £30K salary was enough to live on in London. Now we have a Foreign Secretary who claims that his £140K salary is not enough to support his five children. He did. of course, vote in favour of restricting benefits to two children (apart from the royals).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-ministers-salary-not-enough-a7976641.html

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd October 2017, 06:05 AM

And that surprises you?



Anyone think this is OTT?

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd October 2017, 06:13 AM

A couple of questions occur iro the Tory conference protests...

1. Do the protestors take time of work to attend, or might they actually be dole-claiming layabouts?

2. In what is ostensibly a peaceful protest, why do quite a few protestors feel the need to hide their faces?

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd October 2017, 07:44 AM

Yesterday was Sunday. Most people don't work on a Sunday.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd October 2017, 08:34 AM

Fair point, but if they're back today...

What about my second point though?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd October 2017, 08:37 AM

It takes all sorts. The vast majority didn't.

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd October 2017, 05:01 PM

They're it again. Justine Greening announced yesterday that the earnings level at which graduates have to start repaying tuition fees is to go up from £21,000 to £25,000. What she didn't say (no doubt it just slipped her mind) was that the last change was when the Tories reduced the figure form £23,000 to £21,000.

In other news, Mayhem responded to questions about whether she regretted calling the election by saying that allowing people to vote was a good thing. Why, then, is she so adamant that we should not have a vote when the terms of leaving the EU are known?

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd October 2017, 07:06 AM

Ah i love it when you can use politicians own blatant hypocrisy against themselves just by pointing out how they try and justify mistakes....

Posted by: commonsense 3rd October 2017, 07:57 AM

The electorate voted to leave and that's what we're doing so no further vote is needed and would be a waste of money.

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd October 2017, 11:20 AM

the country voted for Labour in 2005 so no further vote is needed and any further elections would be a waste of money.

In other words, I got the result I want so no more talk about democracy!

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 11:44 AM

A lot of Leavers are dangerous deniers of democracy. They know that as the older generation dies out and the younger gets the vote, the more Remain wins.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd October 2017, 01:31 PM

Except that opinion went from 'In' in 1975 to 'Out' in 2016, so when & why do you think that tread has/will reverse?

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 01:44 PM

Um because of the demographics? Young people are 80% IN

And tha is because we don't listen to the billionaire lies propagated by thr sun and daily mail murdoch billionaire press

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd October 2017, 03:31 PM

But many of those who voted out in 2016 would have been youngsters in 1975, so the idea that those who support it when young will continue to do so as they age, is problematic.

After all, I was a raving lefty when I was a teenager, but look at me now...

This quote is attributed to various people, but while not entirely accurate, it does represent the trend towards conservatism as people get older.

'He who is not a socialist at 19, has no heart. He who is still a socialist at 30, has no brain'

************

As for the effect of the media on public opinion, the direction of cause & effect is unclear - do people choose newspapers because they support opinions they already hold, or vice versa? ISTM most people's opinions are formed when they are children, so it will be their parents or other children who will shape them most.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 03:44 PM

They were not born INTO a globalised sytem and he EU fully formed. THAT makes all the difference. They were bombarded by media brainwashing, all anti-EU. THAT made all the difference. The papers no longer have that power over the young. If the vote were held again, Remain would win.

Now that is why the UK willr everse this old people's decision a few years down the line.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd October 2017, 04:45 PM

I’m 30 in 2 years and I’m what you’d call a socialist (actually a social democrat) and I’d happily place a wager that of the two of us I’m not the one sans brain

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd October 2017, 04:57 PM

Oh its all those Falkland War Non-serving, thatcher UK-flag-flying 80's Sun and News Of The World reading idiots that make the core of the 50-something Leavers.

watched them in action as I grew up and older, watch them now.

If anyone hasnt a brain cell between them it's someone who is presneted with evidence and chooses to believe fantasy

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 05:35 PM

I don't get how Vidcapper does not understand this and clings to fantasy?

We will be back in the EU soon enough.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 05:35 PM

This time with the Euro, without a rebate and without a veto.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 3rd October 2017, 07:18 PM

Hmm, so APPARENTLY, after voting against thr NHS 22x and once vs the proto idea 40 years earlier, whilst currently trying to sell it to the Americans, the man who is privatising is claimed at that crappy conference that the Tories made the NHS.

That is chillingly Orwellian.

Watch the BBTory and right wing papers report his speech without challenging the lie.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd October 2017, 07:48 PM

It as a very narrow majority in an advisory referendum. The government made the advisory nature of the vote very clear when they refused to set any sort of threshold.

The cost of a referendum on the final deal will be the tiniest drop in a massive ocean when compared with the cost of the economy tanking.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 05:54 AM

This is a key point you've hit on, but not for the reason you intended.

We weren't born into such a system, we were *tricked* into it!

The same old article of faith.




You seem to be totally discounting their life experience - there's nothing better than that to counter propaganda.

That's why authoritarian gov'ts concentrate on the young, as they know the old are less susceptible to influence.




What I don't get is while you are so keen to give up our sovreignty?



If they wanted us to rejoin as a net contributor, they could not insist on all three!



Oh, is that what 'This is your decision - we will implement what you decide' really meant?



Why do you use 'will', suggesting certainly, when you are actually only speculating?

Posted by: popchartfreak 4th October 2017, 07:39 AM

1. No we were tricked OUT of it. WE went into it with our eyes open. You were just a kid and didnt have the vote, it was voted on by people who had known decades of war and misery, not soft bitter people who had known decades of prosperity thanks to being IN the EU.

2. Another vote on the final deal should out that opinion once and for all.

3. No, people are VERY susceptible to influence regardless of age, especially those who get older and have less capacity for rational thought. They are frequently the targets of fraudsters, both actual and political. BTW having successfully raised a child does NOT make you any wiser or caring about what happens to others children. Every dictator there has ever been proves that, it just makes you think you are voting for what's best for YOU (and your own child), not society in general.

4. I'm older than you, therefore I have more life experience than you. When you grow up you will learn to be as wise as me. That's YOUR argument not mine BTW...

5. You are arguing about grammar. There is nothing wrong with Suedehead's statement. You are speculating there WON'T be another referendum on the outcome.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 09:10 AM

1. We *were* tricked in! We were told we were just signing up for a trading bloc, not a progression towards an economic & political union.

2. There's no sign there's going to be one.

3. Older people do not lose their capacity for rational thought, except in cases like Altzheimers & similar diseases, in which case they'd be incapable of voting at all.

4. Or perhaps it means that you have 'less capacity for rational thought than I - That's YOUR argument not mine BTW...

5. It's almost exclusively Remainers who are demanding a 2nd referendum - we Leavers consider the issue already settled by the first.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th October 2017, 09:30 AM

Who do you think signed the Maastricht Treaty?

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 09:55 AM

Not the public, that's for sure - we were never given the chance!

[Will you allow me to post unmoderated this time? ]

Posted by: popchartfreak 4th October 2017, 10:10 AM

1. No WE weren't, you were a child. OUR democratically elected governments agreed to every part of it that was subsequently amended or added to. What part of that fact don't you understand?

2. There's no sign there isn't going to be one. We can play this game forever.

3. Older people do become less coherent and forgetful as they get older, this is a medical fact. You can see in almost every person that has ever existed. A lucky few get to retain a fabulous memory into advanced old age. If older people weren't essily led astray they wouldnt be continuously targeted by charlatans. My parents phone rings every day with them trying to screw them with lies (again) as have my elderly neighbours.

I don't need any advice about alzheimers, thanks. My mum has it, I live with it every day. My dad doesn't have it. He is not in favour of Brexit (and neither would my mother have been).

4. Your response makes no sense whatsoever, it's just playground retorts.

5. Fortunately we just about live in a democracy, and everybody can campaign for anything they want to. And elect people who represent our views. Nothing is ever "settled". Not ever. That's reality. Roll on the next election....

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th October 2017, 10:34 AM

There are at least two large topics which have ended up revolving Brexit. You've started multiple polls on very narrow aspects of the Brexit debate and I don't see the point in having any more.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 10:59 AM

Well I couldn't start one in an existing thread as you can only do so at the start, and posing the question in a non-polley way looked very complicated...

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 11:16 AM

1. Oh, I understand that perfectly well - but the strong Euroscepticism that we knew, even at the time, was there, was not taken into account.

2. Not forever, only until Mar 2019.

3. I'm not denying medical facts, but you are doing the elderly a great disservice by suggesting they are incapable of making their minds up without the media telling them. As for being conned by cold-calling scammers, surely the fact that they make headline news, is indicative of the rarety that people actually fall for them?

4. I always endeavour to post politely, except under extreme provocation.

5. I agree with the first two parts, but FPTP often precludes the 'electing people who represent our views' part - e.g. until UKIP there was no mainstream party that Eurosceptics could vote for. As for 'nothing is ever settled', it took us over 40 years for the chance to have our say on the EU, so I see no good reason why the issue need be asked again in the near future.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 4th October 2017, 11:17 AM

Settled by the first with 37% qof the elctorate voting for it.

2/4s of the country voting against.

Even IF that paltry 51% was of the ENTIRE electorate it shows a deeply divided country, and therefore the KNOWN is the correct course of action, especially with the youth being 80% IN and leaving threatening the very existence of the UK union.

Settled??

Not on your life!!

Given it was advisory, the vote marginal, 37% of the electorate support, a deeply divided country, the status quo qas the way to go. In what club would 37% carry the vote? Except not very democratic FPTP.

Labour won in 2001. The issue is settled. We don't want another vote on it!

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 01:17 PM

Must we go down this absurd road *again*?! If someone can't be bothered to vote, then they don't care about the result.

Irrelevant, as that isn't how voting works here.

Do you honestly think that ignoring a Leave vote would make the country *less* divided?

Strawman

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 01:17 PM

As has been pointed out to you several times, the government were very clear in the Commons that this was an advisory vote. If it had been binding, there would probably have been a threshold and that threshold would have been higher than 51&. You seem to be endorsing a minister who told a blatant lie to the House of Commons.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 01:19 PM

then why did the leaflet indicate exactly the opposite?

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 01:41 PM

Lying in the Commons is considered a serious offence for anyone. For a minster it should be a sackable offence. Of course, you have already made it clear what you think of the lies told by Leavers.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 01:44 PM

I think of them the same way I think of the lies told by Remainers...

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 02:45 PM

Nobody has yet produced an example. Please remember that a prediction, by definition, cannot be a lie.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 4th October 2017, 03:32 PM

It is not a strawman argument - it is a HIIIIGHLY RELEVANT POINT.

You do not understand the meaning, idiot savant.

It is 37% of the country, 51%, 2/4s of the nations.

That ia NOT ENOUGH. THE VOTR WAS ADVISORY.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th October 2017, 03:35 PM

So the claim that there'd be an extra £350m for the NHS wasn't a lie, but a prediction?

You know I always have examples prepared.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html

[What, you expected me to look in the Guardian or the LD website to find them - that would be a futile exercise]

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th October 2017, 03:37 PM

There will be an 'emergency budget' within weeks of a leave vote.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 4th October 2017, 03:38 PM

Theresa May got handed her P45 during the midde of her speech!!

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 05:30 PM

The claim was that we paid £350m p.w. to the EU. That claim was a lie. I didn't see the point of reading the article beyond the point where the writer repeated that lie.

Posted by: popchartfreak 4th October 2017, 08:20 PM

1. It was a vote. Exactly as you claim 2016 was. Being angry over losing a vote that you didn't take part in because you were a child at the time is truly bizarre.

2. Teresa May said 2021 or didn't you listen to her speeches? About the time of the next election.....

3. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. All I pointed out was that your constant harping on about older being wiser is bullshit and you only use it to back up points you make then dismiss it when it doesn't suit (ie 1973 referendum). I was older and wiser than you then, and I still am

Cold calling IS a big problem, and old people's phone numbers are constantly sold on by foreigners preying on them. It's not news because there is nothing anyone can do about it. They live abroad. They ring everyday.

4. I didn't say it was insulting or polite, and dont recall ever having had an insulting personal comment from you. just irrelevant as a comment is all. harmless though and marginally amusing comeback.

5. Depends totally on how the economy performs post-Brexit. Priti Patel was only today talking about Brexit being the perfect opportunity to privatise swathes of the Social Care systems in the UK. That means those on benefits, support, NHS, local government, health & safety, schools, and anything that basically rich people object to paying more tax for....

I'm paraphrasing liberally but the sentiment is correct.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th October 2017, 08:47 PM

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 09:30 PM

Avoided by allowing the Bank of England to throw billions of pounds at various measures to avoid economic collapse. In other words, the government let the BofE deal with the short term problems rather than introducing a tax-raising budget.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th October 2017, 09:36 PM

So what, the 'emergency budget' was threatened and it never happened. Therefore that WAS a lie, was it not?

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 09:40 PM

No, it was avoided by other means - in part because the need to act was so urgent that it couldn't wait for a Budget.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th October 2017, 09:44 PM

The original statement remains a lie. Taxes were not raised, cuts were not made.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 09:57 PM

The original statement was a prediction - therefore, it could not be a lie. The general point - a Leave vote will have severe short-term economic consequences - was true.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th October 2017, 10:19 PM

The general point does have some truth true of course, but I'm afraid the specific point (which was not a prediction, but a stated fact) was that of a threat of a 'punishment budget' after voting to leave - including the increase of income tax and significant spending cuts to public services. This was presented as such in order to scare people to voting for the status quo and economic stability and was never carried out. It was therefore a lie. Of course the Bank Of England cut interest rates and instigated further QE - they had to look like they were doing something and don't need much excuse to start pumping up debt and the housing market!
A fair amount of the short-term market volatility was caused by the slightly 'overhyped' prediction of doom that Osborne and others in HMG were making prior to the vote, so IMO they were no more virtuous than those in Vote Leave!

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th October 2017, 10:41 PM

The £350m was a blatant lie about something that was happening. That is very different from a prediction that proved to be inaccurate because of some evasive action

Posted by: vidcapper 5th October 2017, 05:52 AM

We don't pay the EU *weekly*, that much is correct, but our annual gross payment is the *equivalent* of £350m/wk. I suppose you could say it was 'The truth, but not the whole truth'.




2, I don't listen to *any* politicians speeches - they are invariably tedious BS!

3. I was making a point about not using stereotypes

4. One of the main reasons I always try to remain polite, is that I regard abuse as sign that someone has lost the debate.

5. Does *anyone* like paying tax? Some Tories forget that this country has avoided violent upheavals over the years by the wealthy knowing when to make compromises, rather than take a hard-line stance which would increase pressure to the point where people would rise up against them. The Poll Tax is a prime example - they saw the writing on the wall if they didn't dump it!

Posted by: vidcapper 5th October 2017, 05:57 AM

You *asked* me for examples - I provided them. If you're not prepared to give them a fair hearing, then why ask in the first place?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th October 2017, 09:10 AM

How many more times do you need to be told that the £350m claim is a big fat lie?

Forget stupid arguments about how frequently the payments are made, look at the facts. We get a rebate which means that our contribution (the amount we actually send to the EU) is a lot less than £350m p.w. That rebate will end when (if) we leave.

Therefore, the £350 claim is a lie.

The claim that all the money could go to the NHS is simply misleading, even without the issue of the rebate. If all of the money went to the NHS that would mean not replacing all the payments made to the UK by the EU. That money goes into infrastructure, scientific research, regional development grants etc.

Then there are the various agencies of which we are a part. Take just one example - the regulation of medicines. That is currently done at EU level. Unless you think we shouldn't bother regulating medicines we will have to do it at a UK level. It is reasonable to assume that the cost will be greater than our contribution to the EU body.

Posted by: popchartfreak 5th October 2017, 12:04 PM

...and I'd add in support, it was a threat by the duo that saw their jobs about to go to oblivion, NOT an official Remain campaign policy:

ie: "These are the reasons to stay:

If you dont vote for us we will raise taxes in the autumn"

Dont recall that ever being part of the official campaign as a promise or fact.

One could make the same argument for anything Farage said, of course, through not being part of the official campaign and therefore was just a campaign of disnformation as he wasnt in it, and was never going to be in a position to deliver anything he promised.

That is NOT the same position as "We spend 350m a week, let's spend it on the NHS" or "The EU will give us a rose-tinted fabulous deal, just because they need the UK".

That is both a lie and a broken promise.

Posted by: popchartfreak 5th October 2017, 12:12 PM

2. That explains a lot

3. While advancing the stereotype that older people are wiser than young people

4. so do I

5. Nobody likes paying tax, but we have to. The wealthy don't have to, they burrow it away in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere through creative accounting. They look after their own interests (see Priti Pratel speech, or May's husband's job, or Farage's "creative" use of EU taxpayers money). If you think for a single second that wealthy people have some sort of moral chip to help others you are clearly factually misled. SOME do, but mostly those that have experienced poverty themselves, or are educated enough to realise that a fair society is a stable society. An unfair society (as viewed by those on the bottom) is doomed in the long run. Kinda what the EU is all about really.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th October 2017, 01:03 PM

There is not much point in wasting time reading an article by someone who blows their credibility in the first few sentences.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin 5th October 2017, 01:07 PM

She copied parts of her speech from the West Wing!!

Posted by: vidcapper 5th October 2017, 05:08 PM

In which case, i'll copy & paste what you refused to read :



European Council President Donald Tusk, said western political civilisation would be destroyed if the UK voted ‘Leave’. As I am sitting here writing this article, and as you are currently reading this, it is safe to say western political civilisation has not ended. Therefore, we must conclude this was a ‘Remain’ lie.

David Cameron implied in a speech about the “serried rows of white headstones” that World War 3 would be upon us if Brexit occurred. The last time I checked the UK had not invaded Poland or any other country, and therefore we must conclude this was a lie.

George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. To date, no changes to the planned tax rates or public spending have been implemented. So, another lie, and thankfully after his sacking Osborne is no longer in a position create his ‘punishment budget’.

Despite Anna Soubry’s claim to the contrary on a recent Question Time appearance, Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date, in fact the OECD now believes the UK economy will grow 1.8% this year, up 0.1% on its pre-referendum estimate. Even Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, now admits he is “quietly optimistic” about Brexit. Lie number four.

3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about. However, in July the claimant count fell by 8,600 to 763,600, despite an expected rise of 9,500. Another lie.

“A dangerous fantasy” is how Nick Clegg described Nigel Farage’s claim of EU plans to create an army. Barely three months on from the Referendum, Juncker has proposed an EU Army. I’m looking forward to Nick Clegg’s next apology video like the one he made after his last whopper.

We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July, with production passing one million units in seven months for the first time in 12 years. Lie number 7.

David Cameron said he wouldn’t resign as Prime Minister if he lost the Referendum vote. Enough said.

The former Prime Minister also tried to claim the UK could manage its immigration policy while inside the EU. Why are ‘Remain’ campaigners insisting we start to control immigration in any Brexit deal then? Because we cannot control EU immigration now, proving Cameron was lying.

Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place. Lie number 10.





You want me to ask you for an 'approved source' list now?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th October 2017, 06:39 PM

1) These are all predictions. As I keep saying, predictions cannot, by definition, be lies. Do you think a weather forecaster was lying if they get the forecast wrong?

2) We haven't left yet.

3) Everybody with any sense knew that Cameron would have no choice but to resign if Leave won. However, it would have been difficult for him to admit it.

Posted by: popchartfreak 5th October 2017, 09:01 PM

Since when was Donald Tusk involved in the campaign? Remember the End-Of-The-World vitriol when Obama said the UK would go to the end of the line? Recall how Farage spit and mewled at a "foreigner" interfering in the vote? Then he went to America and campaigned for Trump and Germany and France for the Far Right-cum-neo-nazis....

IF Cameron implied WW3 was on the way why was it not on the front page of the Mail and Sun? That would be political suicide of the highest order.

AS Suedey said, tax rises have been avoided because a) B of E rescued the economy in the short term (again) by making interest rates the lowest in history and pumping shitloads of money into the economy (fake money).

Brexit recession has yet to happen because we have yet to have Brexit. The pound DID plummet immediately though and hasnt recovered. Carney's job is to stabilise the economy and be reassuring. He will be fired if he doesn't. The previous Governor was oblivious to the banking crisis and housing superbubble and debt mountain and toed the political party line. They all do.

3 million lose their jobs? Yet to see if that turns out to be tru or not (if it was ever claimed by the Leave campaign as opposed to desperate Cameron the fool who got us in this mess). Case unproven as we haven't left yet. The economy works slowly.

Proposals to create an EU army are still just proposals by one man who isn't King Of Europe. Even if they are serious things may depend on how much the UK continues to contribute towards the defence of Europe (may has suggested she's still in favour).

Car industries were immediately bribed with unknown ("financially confidential") amounts to invest in keeping them here. That means we are paying them to stay. Hardly a confident action. Passing 1million, hardly surprising when people have been driving the same cars for 12 years - sooner or later they pack in and you have to buy a new one. That's if those figures are true (no source quoted).

Cameron is a twat. Always was still is. Only a fool would believe anything he has ever claimed that wasn't backed up on any issue whatsoever. Much like Johnson, farage, Gove, Fox and Davies.

The immigration statement is a confused illogical mess. No surprise there. Much like Davies and May's current confused stance towards folk who still live here as many leave in droves already back to the EU.

the European Uni claim was ceratinly not one I ever heard in the campaign information, never heard it before, but I would add foreign student numbers HAVE dropped already. That means less money, less jobs. It will take a while to trickle through (especailly given the Brexiting gov ministers used students as a way to boost the numbers of quoted immigrants. Recall all those "Invasion by Turkish rapists" headlines? Has Turkey joined the EU? Will they ever? Not looking remotely likely this side of hell freezing over. oddly enough Brexit May is suddenly besties with Erdogan. Care to explain the change of heart? Also known as lies a smuch as any of the pap in this article.

None of the claims in this "article" have sources, it's largely just opinion based on a few spurious claims and assumptions skewed towards preconceived "defend Brexit at all costs" attitudes.

That just wasted 15 minutes of my life, so I think I'll go and do something more important now, like pick my nose.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 05:39 AM

A prediction is 'it will be sunny tomorrow' - while 'we're headed for WW3 if you don't vote to Remain' is just blatant scaremongering'




One point that seems to be be missed here is that outright lying is not the only way to run a dishonest campaign - scaremongering is a common tactic too. Apparently though, anything goes as long as it's *your* side doing the misleading...

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th October 2017, 07:51 AM

So "Tens of millions of Turks will be queuing up to move here" isn't scaremongering?

Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 09:07 AM

Scaremongering has to be credible to be effective, and the above wasn't, since they aren't even members of the EU. That's why WW3 claims were dismissed as absurd.

Posted by: popchartfreak 6th October 2017, 12:18 PM

Thereb were huge menacing Hitler-styled billboards on the front page of every rag. Pretty effective lying as lies go....

BTW Cameron DIDNT say what was claimed:

There was no promise of World War 3, there was only bringiong up the topic for discussion, quite rightly given recent events, some predictions have already come true and Teresa may has promised continued co-operation with Europe to avoid further terrorist attacks - despite thereatening previously to withdraw all co-operation if the EU didn't toe the Brexit line. These are the facts, not the rubbish bias inferred in the article.

Daily Mirror:

"Mr Cameron evoked the image of the lines of fallen British soldiers' graves on the continent.

He referred to Britain’s role in “pivotal moments in European history: Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, our country’s heroism in the Great War and, most of all, our lone stand in 1940”.

He added: "What happens in our neighbourhood matters to Britain. That was true in 1914, 1940, 1989.... and it is true in 2016."

David Cameron has pleaded for Britain to stay in the EU to help prevent the Continent being ripped apart by another conflict.

Mr Cameron today highlighted the UK’s role in bringing peace to Europe as he hit the referendum campaign trail - just hours before a rival speech by rival Tory MP Boris Johnson.

Introduced by Labour ex-Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the British Museum in London, he said: "Can we be so sure peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

"I would never be so rash to make that assumption."


And he recalled how Winston Churchill “argued passionately for Western Europe to come together, to promote free trade and build institutions which would endure so our continent would never again see such bloodshed”.

Read more: World War Two heroes reveal the brave reason they want people to vote to stay in EU

The Prime Minister said many threats to stability still remain - from a "newly belligerent Russia" to the so-called Islamic State and migration crisis.


“When terrorists are planning to kill and maim people on British streets, the closest possible security cooperation is far more important than sovereignty in its purest theoretical form," he said.

He said that during his six years in Downing Street, “the terrorist threat against this country has grown”.

Read more: Mirror readers think David Cameron's World War Three warning might have been a tad dramatic

The Tory leader added: “Our threat level is now at severe, which means a terrorist attack is highly likely.

“Indeed, such an attack could happen at any time.”

Putin attacking democracy and flying planes over the UK anyone? Neo-Nazis back in Germany? Terrorist attacks. All happened....


Re: car sales, I forgot to add, most car sales these days are not actually sales, they are leases-as-borrowed-debt, and they are a real forthcoming problem should there be another worse downturn as people can't pay back the loans they have taken out to lease (with an option to buy).

Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 01:51 PM

Not *that* effective given the closeness of the result.

The way you spin it, if the billboards had claimed the Earth was flat, then most people would start believing it.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 6th October 2017, 03:41 PM

Yes, only 37%, including racists voting as they don't like foreigners, believed them.

Not enough.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th October 2017, 11:44 PM

Theresa May has said that the whole Cabinet is behind her leadership. There were suggestions that a search should be launched for somebody who believed that. However, it soon became clear that such a search would be futile so the idea was dropped.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 05:58 AM

Why oh why do people *keep* pursuing this?

ONLY VOTES ACTUALLY *CAST* MATTER!

Nothing can be inferred from abstentions, except in the case of boycotts, which AFAIK no-one has claimed happened in the Brexit referendum.

On a side issue, what's with the implication that racists should have any less right to express their opinion than anyone else? Surely it's preferable they express their views by the ballot box, rather than by the boot?

That's without even getting into the absurdly wide definition of 'racist' that has been used to try & discredit the Leave vote...

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 7th October 2017, 12:02 PM

People literally saying 'I voted leave as I don't like foreigners'. Such base ignorance on an economic topic basically invalidates the referendum. It should never have gone to the public. It is an rconomic issue for experts, not an issue for the press to rally against with piss poor reasoning.

37% of thr electorate on a divisive issue on a specifically advisory referendum is not enough. It means the people have not spoken.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 01:21 PM

Name 5?

It's a matter of sovereignty not economics!




That's the same bullshit that politicians have been feeding us for the last 40 years, and it's precisely such patronising nonsense that fueled euroscepticism in the first place!



Excuse me - the referendum had one of the highest participation levels of any vote in British history!

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 7th October 2017, 01:55 PM

Still not enough - 37% or even 51% of 100% of the electorate is not enough to change course. Sorry.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 7th October 2017, 01:56 PM

Name 5? Want he facebook or DailyMail screenshots or the names of people who have said it to me directly?

Yeah, no. There is no loss of sovereignty... except to MadMay and her Henry VIII laws and attempts to subvert the judges.

It was a vote of economics and people are not economists so the vote went over their heads.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 02:50 PM

So what - people choose their doctors without having a medical degree. They choose their MP's without having degrees in politics, etc.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 7th October 2017, 05:15 PM

People aren't investigating their doctor's thesis, etc, so that is a strawman.

Politicians lay out agendas understandable to all.

An economic issue as profound as this one was and is above the knowledge of the public, as we saw by the RIDICULOUS leave 'arguments'.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th October 2017, 07:47 PM

If I change my mind about my choice of doctor, I can change to a different one. Similarly, a person's choice of MP can be revisited at least every five years.

It would be a better analogy to say that people allow doctors to make medical decisions on their behalf because doctors are better informed.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 7th October 2017, 07:50 PM

Sounds like she’ll be gone sharpish then. Shall we have a sweepstakes

Posted by: vidcapper 8th October 2017, 05:49 AM

I expected you to say that, but IMO no more so than the EU being purely about economics.

They were no more ridiculous then than those used by Project Fear.




You *can* change your doctor, but there's no guarantee you'll be able to change your MP, so merely 'having the chance to' is often not enough.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 8th October 2017, 09:39 AM

Um 'I hate foreigners', 'tek all our jawwwbs', 'SOVREIGNTY!!' (which is not impeded on in any way) are all ridiculous.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th October 2017, 10:14 AM

Absolutely, which is why it is inconceivable that it could have been the deciding factor for as many as the 1.27m people the result was decided by.

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 8th October 2017, 02:33 PM

Except it absolutely was.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th October 2017, 03:05 PM

perhaps you can explain how you have *proof* of that, that, when no-one else does?

Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 8th October 2017, 04:46 PM

Messageboards, Sun comments, Daily Mail readers, tv panels of leavers, extrapolated by the population as a whole = millions of thr uninformed and ridiculous.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 05:33 AM

Fail once again!

We already know *some* people thought like that, but my point was that you cannot *prove* there were enough of them to tip the vote.

Besides, they would be counterbalanced by those who naively believe the EU is completely benign.

Posted by: popchartfreak 9th October 2017, 07:31 AM

going around in circles here...as I have said, and you CAN'T prove they AREN'T racist. All we can do is go on available evidence, in print, online, and anecdotal in our everyday lives and make a judgement. the evidence supports the theory that it was enough of a significant factor. You are desperately, for some reason, determined to make the fantasy point that everyone hates the EU organisation as much as you do and had a unified view on every voter who voted in the referendum. I know for a fact that not every voter voted for the same reason, therefore it's not 100%. All we are doing is endlessly discussing for no good reason whether it was 20%, 10% or (as you claim) 0.000001%. The latter is highly unlikely. My own view based on the above is it's around 10% where the basic reason for leaving given was "bloody immigrants". I can't prove or disprove that anymore than you can prove or disprove it was less than 1% until every voter in the country is polled anonymously to protect the egos of racists or xenophobes.

No further discussion required.

I'm not naive, and pretty much everyone Ive spoken to who voted remain is fairly well up and informed on the reasons why. No-one ever said or claimed the EU is completely benign. There is no such thing as perfection, as every government that has ever existed has demonstrated. There is only flawed, and worse-than-flawed. Only a naive person would think otherwise, and only a naive person would think things can't get worse than a functioning (if flawed) largely-democratic, humane and decent society (which is the least-bad system ever invented).

Let's turn around your ongoing arguments. Can you prove that Brexit won't be a disaster?

No, you can't. So your judgement is utterly and totally based on one thing: faith that things will be better because you hate the EU, and that's it.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 07:41 AM

I've never claimed Brexit will be a guaranteed success, but I do believe it is a risk worth taking.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th October 2017, 07:46 AM

But doesn't that just reinforce how stupid the idea of a referendum was? Yes, many voters in general elections are ill-informed, but was accept that partly on the grounds that there will be another one in a few years. Delegating a decision on a matter such as EU membership to the electorate was a massive dereliction of duty by MPs.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th October 2017, 09:14 AM

I wouldn't go as far as 'stupid' - at worst 'misguided', given that I supported the decision.

The same MP's were growing ever more fearful of UKIP though, and any rulers/leaders who ignore rising discontent are asking for trouble.

In past centuries, an authoritarian clampdown might have been applied, but not in a 21st century democracy!

Posted by: popchartfreak 10th October 2017, 07:50 PM

Err, Turkey? The USA (arguably having it's freedoms and equality and constitution reduced/ignored as we speak)?

Far-Right winning seats in Germany?

And you enjoy calling Remainers naive!!!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 10th October 2017, 07:58 PM

Posted by: vidcapper 11th October 2017, 05:46 AM

I regard that as exaggeration. No one person, even the POTUS could do that.



Regrettable, but self-inflicted.

If you don't want weeds to grow, don't give them fertilizer.

Posted by: popchartfreak 11th October 2017, 07:23 AM

1. Ask Americans how they feel.

2. So you are contradicting yourself with this statement. It can't happen, except it is happening because the EU is evil (is your implication). Which is it - my facts are wrong and it cant happen in the 21st century, or else I'm right and it can?

Posted by: popchartfreak 11th October 2017, 07:26 AM

thanks for the link but err, relevance to the current statement that it is now authoritarian?

If anything it supports my belief that all bets are off and democracy can die at the drop of a hat regardless of what anyone says or thinks or tries to justify....

Posted by: vidcapper 11th October 2017, 07:51 AM

Republicans or Democrats?



I'm confused - I thought you were talking about Germany specifically, rather than the EU?

What I meant was that, in pressuring countries to accept unwanted immigrants, there are *bound* to create resentment amongst the parts of the population who have most to lose by the influx. Then, since no mainstream party will support a policy of blocking immigration, regrettably they have no other democratic option than to turn to the extreme-right.

Posted by: Chop-part-freak 17th October 2017, 12:35 PM

1. Anyone in America who cares about democracy or honesty. The minority who are enormously stupid and still cling to the illusion that Trmup is in any way helping them (or are being financially supported by groups like the NRA) have no concerns about such things because they don't understand or don't care about others, bitter with how they feel let down over whatever personal gripe they have. Bit like Brexiteers.

2. People who have the most to lose from immigrants are those who feel they taking away their "rightful" jobs (or just closet racists hiding behind nationalism). In reality they don't want the low-paid jobs that immigrants do (or the unpleasant ones) which is why there are now growing numbers of unfilled vacancies (for instance the care company who gives my mum a necessary bath each day while I'm at work - mostly immigrant labour and that we pay £20-30 an hour for - has just terminated their contracts in this area). Don't see any Brexiteers currently not in work lining up to give me a hand or join any care-based company, nor do I see any of them giving a shit about these sorts of consequences to their selfishness.

They fail to see the benefits, in tax, in business, that immigrants bring and assume that all those jobs will somehow magically be filled when no-one wants to come and move to a country that makes them feel unwelcome, or stay in one that won't even guarantee them their existing rights.

OK, you can cue your regular "got to break some eggs to make an omelette" unamusing responses. Can't really call it an "alternative position" but thanks in advance for your sympathy and understanding.

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th November 2017, 09:11 PM

Ah yes, that 21st century democracy.

A democracy where the government is in the process of granting itself wide-ranging powers to amend or repeal a whole raft of EU legislation without having to trouble parliament with the bother of discussing it.

A democracy where the government has rigged the make-up of Commons committees to give itself a majority despite having failed to win one in the most recent election.

A democracy where the government stubbornly refused to publish a series of papers on the impact of the biggest issue facing this country in decades. Documents that were supposedly complete months ago but, somehow, weren't complete a couple weeks ago. They have now finally let MPs see them, but only after large chunks have been removed. We mere plebs are still not allowed to see them.

A democracy where the government announced today MPs will not be able to put forward amendments to the Budget in the usual way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-budget-2017-amendments-mps-commons-vote-committee-debate-rigging-parliament-a8080066.html

Aren't you glad we live in a 21st century democracy instead of some feudal dictatorship?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 07:10 AM

Your attempt to compare the above to *actual* violent dictatorships is unworthy of your usual high standard of posting, alas.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 29th November 2017, 08:29 AM

and your continued "quick change the argument before anyone notices the subject change" remarks to avoid valid points being made, is very unworthy, alas, still.

Could it be, gasp!, you have no actual argument with the points?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 09:34 AM

I only ever change the arguments when the ones put up are exaggerated/irrelevant.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 11:14 AM

You mentioned authoritarianism, not violence. Now perhaps you would like to explain how any of my points are acceptable in a 21st century democracy.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 11:32 AM

I never said they *were*, only suggesting that you were creating a flawed analogy.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 12:10 PM

This is a thread about Tory lies, deceit and general anti-democratic behaviour. Other threads exist for having a go at other parties. My assertion that these measures have no place in a 21st century democracy stands, making it wholly relevant.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 02:53 PM

I can't see how Labour could handle the situation any differently if they were in the same situation though, since going through *every single law* passed since we joined is obviously absurdly impractical. Many of the laws were just nodded through anyway, so if they didn't need detailed scrutiny at the time, who would they need it now?

Before you say it, this is not another attempt at distraction - if the gov't is being criticised for something, then you would hope the critic had a more practical solution in mind...

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 29th November 2017, 03:04 PM

Tory MPs voting animals can't feel pain or emotions is one such example of what an authoritarian, ridiculous notion it is to ket the Tories just pass whatever they want in repealing these EU laws. Will they vote on the age of the sun next?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th November 2017, 04:22 PM

And there was I, thinking you didn't approve of media sources that 'improve' stories for effect - or so you always tell me about The Mail.

That is not what they did, according to one of your *approved* sources...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-mps-not-pass-vote-11572216

[and before you ask - no I do not approve of animal cruelty]

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th November 2017, 05:39 PM

That might be justifiable if there was some urgent need to change these laws. If there was such an urgency, you'd have thought the Leave campaigners might have said something about it in the referendum campaign. As it was, they didn't seem able to mention a single law they wanted to change.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 06:41 AM

I must be missing your point here?

If the former laws don't need to be changed, then what's the problem with simply 'cut/pasting' them into the statute books?

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 09:12 AM

You are missing something. I haven't criticised the idea of absorbing EU laws into UK law. If the government are reckless enough to go ahead with this nonsense, it is the most logical approach. I do, however, object to them granting themselves the power to amend or repeal those laws at the stroke of a pen.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 09:29 AM

Ah, OK - I'm with you now.

Then ISTM what is needed is a time limit on these powers, so they can't be abused after the incorporation process is completed.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 10:35 AM

There should be no time limit. The powers shouldn't be granted at all.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 10:48 AM

Well I wouldn't disagree with that, but how else could all the EU-instigated laws be reintegrated into British law within a reasonable time?

[assuming Brexit *does* happen, of course]

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 11:05 AM

You still don't seem to have got the point. All EU laws will become part of UK law as part of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. No further action would be required if those laws are to remain the same. However, the government want to be able to repeal or amend them by ministerial fiat. That is not acceptable in a 21st century democracy.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 12:14 PM

Got it now - so if they want to amend the laws, they should do it through the normal parliamentary process, even if there are hundreds.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 12:26 PM

Yes. As I said earlier, the Leave campaigners didn't exactly provide a list of laws they wanted to repeal. Therefore, even they don't seem to think there is any great urgency.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th November 2017, 05:25 PM

But there must be hundreds, if not thousands, that've been passed over the years - you could hardly expect the average Brexit voter to have a list of them all to hand.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th November 2017, 06:26 PM

They weren't able to give a single example.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th November 2017, 07:43 PM

The only that got everyone wound up enough so it got front-page news was bendy bananas - and that was a Boris Johnson fake news story. Just think that one made-up story caused long-term damage to the economy of the country as idiots believed it to be true...

Ooops.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 30th November 2017, 08:26 PM

So, anyway.

Some of the things that Theresa May doesn't think are good enough reasons to stop a President Of The United States having an official British visit:

Several allegations of sexual assault, including a minor, many of them in pending court cases (if he ever vacates the Presidency)

Allegations of rape from his former wife.

Implying he'd shag his own daughter.

Having multiple business ties with Russians and lying about them.

Hiring his entire family into political posts.

Failing to condemn Nazi organisations and murders committed by them, and murders of numerous non-whites.

Calling for the death penalty for 5 innocent young black youths.

Spreading falsehoods about the former President and Secretary of State.

Rounding up Latinos.

Trying to end health care for the poor.

Trying to cut taxes for the mega-rich at the expense of the not-rich.

Not fulfilling any of his campaign promises.

threatening North Korea.

Banning Muslims entering the USA from Muslim Countries with no links to terror acts in the USA (except those Muslim countries that he has business interests in, and which have citizens who have committed terror acts).

Supporting rich people who have been accused of being sexual predators, even when they are standing for office.

A company he financially supports has tried to create false rape accusations in order to make actual rape accusations of of a fellow Ultra-right-wing look as fake as the lying woman paid to do it.

and finally, (at least for today),

Has retweeted fake hate videos from a Far-Right banned British hate group and bragged about it in the face of a feeble comment from the Prime Minister and her fellow Brexiteering lackeys desperate not to upset any potential trade deal with the USA (NB: Trump and HIS lackeys have commented that Brexit is the perfect opportunity to steal away UK business and made no offers of anything of help).

So, pretty much there is nothing that May finds outrageous enough to tell him to piss off. Terrific example of supporting family values there, then. Apparently all those things he has done are fine, barely worth a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, our closest democratic allies, and leaders who have done none of those things, are vilified.

Funny ol' sense of values in the world our Conservative Party have.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th November 2017, 08:42 PM

He has fulfilled http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/rulings/promise-kept/of his campaign promises. However, many of them, including pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, were ones that we would have been happy for him to have broken.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 06:50 AM

How many could *any* of us name, off the cuff?

The only specific one I can come up with is the Working Time Directive, but that's one of the more beneficial ones.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 08:31 AM

The Leave campaigners were trying to claim some sort of knowledge of their subject. Surely that should include having some vague idea of what the institution they claim to despise has actually done.

The Tories did, of course, to their great shame negotiate an opt-out from the Working Time Directive. Labour, to their credit, changed that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 01:18 PM

True - OTOH this isn't an exhaustive list and there are many many more serious issues that could be added but my wrist can only take so much pounding on a keyboard.....

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 03:02 PM

Does anyone have thought on the Damien Green porn issue?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detective

ISTM the issue is not the *fact* of him watching porn, but *where* he was doing it?

It does make you wonder how many others were/are watching it, but have not been caught?

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 04:53 PM

If there was porn on his Commons-supplied computer, that would be a sackable offence at any other employer, regardless of the fact that it was apparently legal. If it was downloaded by somebody else, it is still a serious disciplinary matter as it would mean he would have allowed that other person to access his PC which would have been likely to contain sensitive information. The fact that his supporters are concentrating on the type of porn allegedly involved is just an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue

Posted by: vidsanta 1st December 2017, 05:17 PM

He could be sacked from a gov't post, but not from parliament.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 05:30 PM

That depends. If he is found guilty of misconduct by the Commons, he can be the first MP to be the subject of a recall vote. Of course, if he had any sense of dignity, he would resign before that happened.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 08:09 PM

Indeed. This kind of thing is old hat to people in Bournemouth. Our Council ex-leader lost his job (and resigned as a Councillor shortly after) for exactly the same thing. Had I (heaven forbid) used my work laptop to download porn I would have lost my job instantly, but politicians seem to be such special people - able to make the rules for the plebs, but free to flaunt them themselves by virtue of their moral superiority and huge brains. Some of them have brains so big they can barely walk through a doorway without having to stoop low.

So never say politicians stoop low at the drop of a hat. They can't avoid the dropping the hat off their massive heads....

There are also whispers that the porn (allegedly) isn't the real issue. Davy Davy has hinted he might resign if his bestie doesn't get party support. At long last, the excuse he's been looking for to dump Brexit negotiations (failed so far) from his huge workload....

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 08:32 PM

You really couldn't make it up, could you? "If you sack my fwiend for bweaking the wules, I'll scweam and scweam and scweam and then I'll quit."

Posted by: vidsanta 2nd December 2017, 06:53 AM

I suspect that is an unlikely scenario, on a 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' basis...

Besides, I thought they needed a certain level of approval by the voters in his constituency?

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2017, 08:37 AM

In order for a recall vote to be triggered, an MP first has to be found guilty of misconduct by the Commons. I think there is then a minimum number of signatures to be collected before such a vote actually happens.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd December 2017, 05:42 PM

So Jacob Rees-Mugg has met with Steve Bannon.

Think about that. The man who wants to destroy the US political system and make America whiter. The man who spreads lies and propaganda in a joint attack on democracy with Donald Trump and helped make him President, meeting with a rich posh man who has ambitions to be Prime Minister.

The next Trump, one might presume, only not as dumb, not quite as rich, and sneaky enough to try and hide his real agenda. Bit like Farage meeting Assange.

"Coming soon, When Jakie Met Stevie, a movie of two lifelong friends who f***ed other people but not each other. "I'll have what he's having" said one restaurant customer, after Stevie showed how he faked orgasms during a meal. It can only end one way: the start of lifelong relationship?" Written by former Hollywood scriptwriter (failed) S. Bannon B.R.Eitbart (Hons)

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 2nd December 2017, 05:50 PM

Was he a Hollywood scriptwriter?!

This is appalling.

It's as bad as when he went for a luncheon with an EXTREMELY racist group that wants to 'repatriate' ANY and ALL non-white people even AFTER!!! the Human Rights Campaign contacted him to let him to know about their views.

He is vile. The worst Landed Gentry Tory I have ever come across.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 06:50 AM

That sounds like a bit of exaggeration to me.

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 06:52 AM

I would hope that such a vote would need cross-party support, otherwise it could be abused for party political purposes.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 09:28 AM

His own words. Try googling. So naive......

Posted by: vidsanta 3rd December 2017, 10:20 AM

I tried googling so naive, but it just came up with a Kooks song.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd December 2017, 12:40 PM

hah! A good one-liner....

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd December 2017, 02:29 PM

Or, indeed, make it very difficult for a government MP to be dumped. The intention was to avoid frivolous attempts by voters (particularly in seats where the winner got around 1/3rd of the vote). However, the resultant system is still deeply flawed.

Posted by: burbe 20th December 2017, 09:28 PM

Damien Green "resigning" is the best thing to happen since Priti Patel "resigned" *.*

Boris and Theresa next

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th December 2017, 10:18 PM

And good riddance to another lying toad.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th December 2017, 10:44 PM

Anyone remember Davy Davy saying he would resign if Green was forced to quit? I can only assume he is waiting for someone to help him write his resignation letter.

Posted by: vidsanta 21st December 2017, 07:09 AM

I guess he's hoping that no-one has that in writing.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st December 2017, 10:24 PM

I should imagine there's several million volunteers lining up. I can help, if need be:

Dear Tez,

My bestie Damian din't deserve to be sacked just for doin what any in their right mind would do, lookin at porn on work laptops is just fine, no chance of virises or Russain bots, the coppers just plotting to get rid of brexters, and u know me, I stick to me word. I said I wud go if Dames went, so fraid I must also go and do the decent thing

luv
Davy D.

PS I kwite fancy your job how hard can it be?

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st December 2017, 10:26 PM

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 21st December 2017, 10:27 PM

BBTory is trying to spin the story by saying it shows how strong she is for asking him to resign!! Could not make it up. Meanwhile in other ALMOST VERGING ON SATIRE news, the Faily Mail has BEMOANED IT, saying he should not have been forced out!! It's just incredible

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st December 2017, 11:42 PM

Yes, the claim that Green's departure somehow shows May to be a strong leader is utterly barking. If she is such a strong leader, why is there still a fat numpty in the Foreign Office?

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 09:28 PM

Has anyone been installed as deputy yet?

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd December 2017, 09:41 PM

No. The vacancy won't necessarily be filled at all.

For cryptic crossword fans, here is a topical clue...

And I am reckless naive politician (6,5)

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 23rd December 2017, 10:30 PM

Andrew Mitchell?

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 08:29 AM

Not sure if this has come up before, but if it has, I missed it :

Jeremy Hunt ridiculed for claiming Tories 'set up' the NHS

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-nhs-creation-tories-health-minister-ridiculed-a7980536.html

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 10:20 AM

He has a brass neck - the NHS symbolises Everything the Tory party hates - socialised answers to societies ills.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 12:31 PM

He is very selective in his "facts". The White Paper was not commissioned by a Tory government, it was the wartime coalition. William Beveridge, who wrote it, was a Liberal. It is true that the 1945 Tory manifesto included a commitment to implement the report, but that didn't stop them voting against the Attlee government when they did just that.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 12:35 PM

Churchill was one of its main opponents comparing nationalisation to the nazis and needing a gestapo to enforce.

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 02:34 PM

he was clearly as fond of hyperbole as some in this forum...

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 02:36 PM

He was also chancellor in the 20s and caused a lot of the need/want which led to the conditions which would cause the crash so it's understandable why he lost the 1945 election - very much a Victorian when it came to economics and social issues!

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 03:21 PM

Indeed. The fact than many working-class people despised Churchill tends to glossed over.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th December 2017, 03:22 PM

It would be hard to beat Trump for hyperbole. I would say he was the most prolific user of hyperbole ever, but you might not get the joke.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 03:24 PM

And yet now they love UKIP/Farage!

Posted by: vidsanta 24th December 2017, 03:51 PM

He was also strongly opposed to Indian independence.



You underestimate me.

Posted by: ChristmasEve201 24th December 2017, 04:36 PM

Again proof of his Victorian Britannia rules the Waves values!

He flirted with liberalism because for a time he felt the 1909 welfare bills were necessary to ward off a communist revolution!

Posted by: Candlelit Snow 28th December 2017, 01:22 PM

Not sure where to put this, but today is, "Let's Remember the Daily Mail Supported Hitler Day" Some people are even holding 'celebrations' to get the message oot!

Posted by: vidcapper 28th December 2017, 02:47 PM

Answers on a postcard...

We're talking 80 years ago FFS - a lot of people got fooled by Hitler, until they found out what he was really like!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th December 2017, 09:48 PM

Same family, same propaganda, same techniques, same tax-dodging behind it...

Now if they had moved to occupy a sane centre-ground position, or left, or any other sort of political viewpoint, then one could quite rightly say that...

For example just because DTrumps dad was a KKK-supporting rich racist that doesn't mean he is - if he'd proven he wasn't by his actions and statements. Ooops, seems often to run in families, what a shock, who knew!

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd January 2018, 03:26 PM

Toby Young appointed university 'tsar'

I'm surprised no-one has commented on this :

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/01/toby-young-universities-regulator-office-for-students

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/toby-youngs-appointment-to-the-ofs-shows-everything-wrong-with-our-attitude-towards-universities

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd January 2018, 09:34 AM

just shows how "populist" this Tory Government is, appointing someone who thinks disabled people shouldnt be in schools, for example.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd January 2018, 11:55 AM

If the government thought that appointing Toby Young was such a great idea, why did they slip the announcement out at one minute past midnight on New Year's Day?

Posted by: Brett-Butler 3rd January 2018, 12:02 PM

New Year's Day is usually a slow news day, so if they were trying to bury the story, putting it out on the 1st January, where there is hardly any stories to compete with it, would be a strange day to do it. Better to have waited until something Harry/Meghan related pops up.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd January 2018, 02:06 PM

New Year's Day headlines are all about fireworks. Newsrooms aren't exactly overflowing with journalists as Big Ben strikes midnight to ring in the new year.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd January 2018, 02:26 PM

I wonder if anyone would really have noticed even if it had been announced in the normal manner?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 3rd January 2018, 07:22 PM

Probably, it's completely scandalous.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2018, 06:36 AM

To students maybe, but I doubt its anything others will lose sleep about...

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2018, 07:55 AM

On the subject of students, and the Tories :

Theresa May under fire as student visa myth exposed

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/24/pressure-grows-for-immigration-targets-to-exclude-foreign-students

(I realise this article is some months old, but it does seem relevant to this thread)

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th January 2018, 08:44 AM

Maybe not, but they certainly should be.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2018, 08:53 AM

You mean if they have children coming up to Uni age?

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th January 2018, 09:19 AM

Some people extend their concern beyond themselves and their immediate family. It's called compassion.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th January 2018, 09:26 AM

Bam! Pow! Kerpling!

Posted by: vidcapper 4th January 2018, 10:20 AM

True enough, but how many of those will even have heard of Toby Young, let alone know of his appointment?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th January 2018, 11:15 AM

You're asking whether they are concerned, when we've been trying to point out that they should be. It tends to be the role of journalism to find bad things that have happened so that people can care about them - you can't expect everyone to be an expert.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 06:30 AM

But there are varying degrees of 'bad things' - people are likely to care more about victims of, say, natural disasters, than bad gov't appointees.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 5th January 2018, 09:01 AM

How is that in any way relevant?

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 10:31 AM

It's relevant because it relates to what people choose to be concerned about - if you allow yourself to be upset about everything bad in the world, you'd end up a basket case!

A lot more people will be concerned about, say 3rd world poverty, than the mere appointment of a possible bigot to a committee overseeing universities.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th January 2018, 10:36 AM

Congratulations, you just eliminated everyone applying for public office, you know, it's their actual JOB to be concerned about everything, bigly or teeny tiny. Bigots in high places cause further problems, so it's not an actual minor problem.

While one is sat on one's arse flicking through daytime TV, of course, one doesn't have to feel concerned about anything at all, but people paid to do a job to take care of society do have to be and those of us who elect them need to make sure they arent pulling the wool over our eyes. It's called democracy. What you are proposing is laissez faire shoulder-shrugging waddyadoboutitwhatsfordinner.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th January 2018, 10:50 AM

I disagree - politicians are assigned specific areas of responsibility - the Home Secretary deals with issues relating to Crime & Punishment, the Chancellor for the Economy, etc. They can be concerned about other areas on a human level of course, but they are not *responsible* for them.

Only if they allow their prejudices to affect their remit in overt ways, and even then there are checks & balances to make sure personal agendas don't undermine the rule of law.



Now who's trying to trivialise the issue?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th January 2018, 07:22 PM

1. Being assigned responsibility for one area does not mean one is ignorant of other areas, or of having no interest in other issues, or political interest in. Myopic.

2. They do, and no there aren't checks. The history of politics is one of poiliticians thinking they can do what they like, and trying to get away with it - we saw it over the Parliamentary Brexit procedures, and we see it on a weekly basis how this government has abandoned ALL of it's election promises. Liars. That's why we need to keep them in check, because politicians are not always honest and open.

3. I'm deadly serious. Apathy amongst people is a real danger to their own well-being when faced with liars and self-interested people and organisations. I never under-estimate the will and ability of the rich and powerful to screw the poor. Apparently you do, so that makes you either shruggy-shoulders about it, or else blindly optimistic and gullible. Given your vitriolic attacks on European politicians I'd like to know what you think makes our UK politicians genetically or morally superior to anyone else's - cos I see no evidence for it whatsoever. Feel free to give examples.....

Posted by: vidcapper 6th January 2018, 07:16 AM

Hence my 'They can be concerned about other areas on a human level of course, but they are not *responsible* for them.' comment

That's what we have elections for.



Again I find this ironic - from my perspective, the apathy involves naively going along with the EU project, uncaring of whether it's claimed objectives are actually it's real ones. For me, actions speak louder than words - and the ire directed against the UK by some EU officials for 'daring to leave' hardly convinces me I am wrong to be suspicious of it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th January 2018, 09:39 AM

1. So we agree on my initial point
2. So we agree on my initial point
3. You are just repeating what I said you say. You are giving me no examples of why UK politicians are any different (personally I think they are less trustworthy at present), you are just side-stepping the point entirely.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th January 2018, 10:58 AM

3. It's not that I think UK politicians are any more trustworthy, but at least we have the means to remove them all if we so chose, rather than just around 10% as in the EU parliament.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th January 2018, 11:26 AM

We have another contender for the "You couldn't make it up" award. According to the Telegraph, Theresa May is considering postponing her intended promotion of Jeremy Hunt to replace Damien Green as her de facto deputy. This is because of the current problems in the NHS. Surely the current problems in the NHS are a reason not to promote him at all rather than just delaying it for a few months.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th January 2018, 01:15 PM

Brexit is sort of grabbing attention away from the key issue in the country, really. Do we want a free NHS, and do we wish to vote for a party that supports it? It's not free of course, it's paid for via taxes which shares the burden between those who cant afford medical care, those who can, and those who have shitloads of money they spend a lot of effort keeping to themselves.

It's pretty clear: vote Tory to destroy the NHS (they are doing a pretty good job dismantling it bit by bit over a prolonged period - at no benefit to the tax payer incidentally, quite the reverse, the benefit is to private health companies and politicians on their boards, and profits for investors). Corbyn has a chance to make perfectly clear it will be supported, privatisation ended and reversed, and he will do all he can for the economy (regardless of his personal preferences) to ensure that money is available. This is the issue that will kill the Tories off, Brexit is a diversion which is hopelessly splitting them (and Labour) and the consequences of it may be disastrous for the NHS if the Tories use it as an opportunity to get rid. "We can no longer afford it thanks to the British voter wanting a Hard Brexit, not our fault just doing what you voted for".

Very Tory sort of argument I forsee taking hold.....

Posted by: vidcapper 6th January 2018, 02:43 PM

With no majority, the Tories dare not harm the NHS too much, especially as the main beneficiaries are older people, who are also the main source of Tory votes...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th January 2018, 06:25 PM

You weren't in A&E and various emergency wards wards over Christmas and the New Year. I was (with my father). That is EXACTLY what is happening. Why else do you think May made an emergency announcement to limit the damage? Just for jollies? You really do need to pop over to your nearest hospital, visiting someone who's seriously ill is enough, no need make yourself critically ill just to observe.

just as an example of the emergency services...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-81-found-dead-home-11802607

Posted by: vidcapper 7th January 2018, 06:33 AM

I'm not saying the NHS doesn't have problems, only that the Tories are not solely to blame for it. No matter how much money is pumped into the NHS, it will never be enough to do what people think it *should*. As for the other comment, I am just thankful that it's been 5 years since anyone in my family has been seriously ill enough to need to stay in hospital.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th January 2018, 08:31 AM

yes they are to blame. Under Labour (whatever else I can criticise them for) things were better financed and targets met, because they gave it a priority. That's not to say they couldnt have done more to make sure money didnt continue going into private hospitals etc who also made a killing out of the NHS (most of them couldnt survive without bunging difficult patients back into the system on the grounds that they can't handle them, just dont have the breadth of skills, so if I had my way the NHS should charge the insurance companies of private patients to claim the money back and we'll see just how successful they really are. Just as the NHS currently is able to recharge EU nations for their citizens - but the rest of the world get it free)

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2018, 07:11 AM

More than 24,000 bids to access porn websites were made from Parliament's network over five-month period

The figure averages out at around 160 requests a day on parliamentary network
There were 24,473 in five months on the network used by MPs, peers and staff
A spokesman said most of the attempts to access the sites were not deliberate

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5244775/More-24-000-bids-access-porn-sites-Parliament.html

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 8th January 2018, 04:44 PM

URGH HUNT REMAINDS HEALTH SECRETARY

THEY ARE REALLY GOING ALL OUT TO PRIVATISE IT

He is such a slimeball - they use him to do their dirty business all thr time

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 01:08 PM

How about some upbeat T.May tweets - actually conveniently spun to make it appear she is actually doing something for the UK?
1.
"Wow what a fantastic achievement you are celebrating the slowest recovery in 300 years only the south sea bubble and the Black Death resulted in slower recoveries - Danny Blanchflower added,

Theresa May
Verified account

@theresa_may
There's more to do, but we should be proud that manufacturing output is at the highest level in 10 years.
4:39 AM - 13 Jan 2018 from Sanibel, FL"

2.
"Theresa May‏Verified account
@theresa_may
Follow Follow @theresa_may
More
From today we're banning hidden charges for paying with your credit or debit card - a move that will help millions of people avoid rip-off fees when spending their hard-earned money."

This is a hated EU piece of legislation and nothing to do with the Tory Party. No doubt one of those annoying red-tape things they could have removed at a whim if not for that pesky need to go through Parliament that they wanted to avoid.

What a sneaky deceitful pathetic human being she is.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2018, 01:12 PM

Perhaps our resident Daily Mail reader can point us to where that publication makes it clear that this is an EU initiative rather than a government one.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th January 2018, 03:18 PM

This is the first I've even heard of it.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th January 2018, 04:49 PM

errr case proven then....

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 06:57 AM

What exactly do you claim to have proven?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th January 2018, 09:25 AM

That your new sources don't report on facts. They prefer to ignore them entirely if they don't suit the agenda.

Posted by: vidcapper 14th January 2018, 09:38 AM

I don't even know if the Mail reported it, let alone what stance it took on it.

I must reiterate though, that *all* news sources are selective about the facts/stories they publish.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 14th January 2018, 01:12 PM

If the Prime Minister has tweeted about a new benefit to most people (paying less in CC fees) any newspaper that doesn't report it is being selective - it's actually GOOD news that no-one in their right mind would argue against. They choose to ignore it because it's the EU that has brought it in and that doesn't fit in with their "Hate The EU Red tape" propaganda. Feel free to say you are against the legislation and explain why the UK government should get rid of it and return things to the way they were before (which they may well be free to do in year or so)...

That the Prime Minister has misled the entire nation over it, claiming credit for her own party, is pretty newsworthy actually. Again, not to the Tory right, can't show them up to be the liars that they are....

PS claiming being "selective" with news items which affect peoples lives as if it were something all reputable newspapers do is incorrect. They may interpret it in different ways, but they do report it. Fox News is the sort of news organisation that just omits actual news that suit it's agenda, and the UK gutter press are no different. That's called propaganda. Not giving it's readership access to facts. Which is why those who don't read elsewhere are myopic about many things.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2018, 10:43 AM

The Times has an interesting article on Carillion: BBC summary

"The ongoing saga of troubled government contractor Carillion makes the front page of the Times, which says ministers are facing questions as to why so much work was awarded to the company despite the red flags in "a string of profit warnings"."

Sounds very like Bournemouth Council Tories who were so convinced that the private sector meant savings they ignored professional warnings of bankruptcy and signed up anyway - with the firm going bankrupt within 6 months and the staff who were 100% correct getting fired. To date there has been no public scrutiny of the "confidential financial details" of the deal or the savings achieved, or lack of. Just claims.

I think we can expect the same from the government.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2018, 10:54 AM

According to Private Eye there is a bit of a conflict of interest with Carillion.. KPMG (who audits Carillion along with Balfour Beatty) allegedly advised the DfT when it was deciding to go ahead with the £56 bn HS2 project. Usual story of ridiculous overbidding, hugely overpaid management, and the taxpayers taken for a ride all in the name of "FREE MARKET" economics of course.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 15th January 2018, 10:58 AM

Yes, they also hand over the Conflict Of Interest Award of 2017 to the Leader of Bournemouth Council for an issue. Currently under police investigation, and co-incidentally our Chief Executive was let go shortly before. The Council seems unable to hold onto senior staff who point out problems with political decisions.....

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th January 2018, 11:02 AM

One day in the not too distant future the big 4 are going to come to a crossroads where they have to seriously contemplate splitting into two with the audit business becoming a completely seperate firm from the rest. Clean break with no shared partners, exec boards or even branding. Only way to avoid these conflict of interests.

Although I’m not sure there really is one here. The teams that would be auditing the construction firms wouldn’t have a single team member in common with the team consulting the gov. Surely if KPMG can see what a state they’re in and what they bid they’d know it was undercosted and could advise against picking their client? That id believe as a conflict of interest.


Very interesting to see what happens next given how ingrained Carillion are in the public sector. If this was a Labour government I wonder if we would be genuinely looking at nationalisation to protect government interests and keep these key projects going

Posted by: Doctor Blind 15th January 2018, 11:19 AM

Probably should be a public enquiry to find out what has been going on though? KPMG had to withdraw from its government contract of drawing up "delivery" plans for the Grenfell Tower inquiry, because it audits some of the companies involved...

Anyway I thought this was somewhat spooky:

Not ANOTHER Phillip Green led company going into liquidation. : (

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th January 2018, 12:13 PM

I think it's a different Philip Green. I'm sure more would have been made of it if it had been the same one.

We can also be confident that the press would be screaming blue murder if a Labour government had awarded massive contracts to a company known to be in financial difficulties.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2018, 11:30 AM

"CORRECTION; Yesterday I said taxpayer bill for Carillion likely to be 'tens of millions.' Actually, it's looking like 'hundreds of millions.' Senior official told me that £600m 'the kind of figure once we have paid through the nose for new private contractors to take on the work'"

Adonis tweet. SO familiar a situation to local gov staff...

I notice the Tory rags are not reporting on the cost to the taxpayer and the threat to tens of thousands of jobs on the front pages. Apparently, Iceland (the firm) doing away with own-label packaging (very worthy news item, but not in the same league) is more important. Though scooping beans out of a trough and into tins one by one might get messy

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th January 2018, 11:40 AM

As the NHS undergoes attack by stealth undercover of Brexit, I wonder if I'm alone in thinking that Jeremy c**t looks like the evil twin of Ryan Giggs who escaped from his parents attic?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 17th January 2018, 07:51 AM

It has now come to light that both PwC (the firm appointed by the court to liquidate Carillion) and EY both refused to act as administrators because they didn’t think they’d get paid. PwC/Court has told creditors to expect less than 1p in the £1 on debts owed by Carillion.

A substantial amount of the work Carillion does is actually done by sub-contractors who were paid in 120 day terms!! There’s an estimated 30,000 business in the supply chain impacted by the collapse.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2018, 08:22 AM

It really is outrageous that a large company can get away with waiting 120 days to pay an invoice. How is a small business supposed to operate on those terms?

We now find that Carillion had just £29 million in cash and around £1 billion of debts. We also hear that they continued to pay dividends to their shareholders and generous bonuses to the directors. This was going on while the pension fund was seriously underfunded.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th January 2018, 10:18 AM

It really is time that gross mismanagement by company directors was made illegal - as in prison sentences unless they can demonstrate all clear attempts to stop personal gains while they fail in their job and either try to put it right or resign in favour of someone else who is prepared to do that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th January 2018, 10:26 AM

...and back on the NHS (still not giving me any help or assistance as I continue to be unable to go to work due to 2 parents who can not look after themselves, 4 weeks on). I see there has been a dramatic decline in life expectancy in many regions of the country (the poorer ones) of a year since 2011. Jeremy c**t took charge of the NHS in 2012, so it's fair to say the absolute c**t has personally caused the earlier deaths of many many people and can feel well pleased to have achieved his aims of reducing the burden of older people (and many younger suicidal people). Well done you total rhyming slang.

It would be wrong to wish the death of a fellow human being. However, in order to save lives, I have a moral dilemma about it.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th January 2018, 11:09 AM

Yes, I saw that story on the front of the Times - as you say it has only really occurred in the former Industrial heartlands and now economically weaker parts of the UK, but the falls of a year or more in just the past six years are quite shocking! It tells a story of a widening gap between the poorer forgotten parts of the UK and the more affluent London/SE and as you say speaks to the failure of this health secretary and government in maintaining a good standard of social care in these areas.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2018, 11:35 AM

I quite agree - but unfortunately that wouldn't prevent the damage being done before they were caught.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th January 2018, 11:40 AM

Another example of the calibre of Tory appointments...

From the Mail (I know, I know, but maybe you can forgive me this one)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276255/Ben-Bradley-hints-men-benefits-vasectomies.html


Give 'unemployed wasters' vasectomies: Theresa May's new youth Tsar sparks fury by calling for jobless parents to be sterilised

Tory rising star Ben Bradley criticised families on benefits with lots of children

He made the controversial comments in a now deleted blog penned in 2012

MP for Mansfield has apologised for the comments and said he has 'matured'

*************

In situations like this, you're always left wondering if they genuinely regret saying it, or merely regret *being caught* saying it?

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2018, 11:47 AM

From what I've read, he wasn't actually emending compulsory vasectomies or anything like that. That said, his remarks were clearly stupid and offensive. Mind you, he was in his early twenties at the time, so his claim to have matured is more plausible than Toby Young's feeble excuses.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 17th January 2018, 12:10 PM

While it is more plausible, it should be noted that he's still only 28 now.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2018, 04:04 PM

Good to see that the former chief executive of Carillion, forced out for being rubbish at his job, has managed to find another job. He is in charge of inspections at a nuclear power station. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 17th January 2018, 07:05 PM

120 days is utterly criminal but speaks to the power of large dominant firms in this market. I think the final figure is up at £1.3bn.

Some more detail over how the collapse has come about has emerged across today.

RBS pulled the plug in the end by refusing to take any further part in their restructuring attempts. From what I understand, Carillion then approached us and EY about entering administration. Unlike the Government we actually do our due diligence when we enter an engagement and too have 2 big 4 firms say "We don't think we're going to get paid" is truly a damming indictment on Governmental contracting processes. With the pair of us (poor forgotten about Deloitte the only Big4 firm not in someway linked to this) having no faith in Carillion paying us, never mind surviving, it was liquidated.


Tories trying to hit back today at saying ⅓ of carillon contracts were awarded under Labour. Without realising that means in a shorter time they doubled the amount of contracts awarded to this firm who have been on the brink now for a while.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2018, 07:34 PM

Labour were last in power nearly eight years ago. I assume Carillion were a going concern at the time. That being the case, how is it relevant that they were awarded contracts by a Labour government?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 17th January 2018, 07:49 PM

Right? It was a strange 'comeback' by May. Didn't really understand what they were trying to achieve.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th January 2018, 07:51 PM

His name isn't Homer Simpson is it?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th January 2018, 07:55 PM

Blame the last Labour/Tory government for everything has always been a good Get Out Of Jail Free card to play in the game of oneupmanship - implying they are both as crap as one another as if that is some sort of excuse for useless politicians who are currently not doing their job properly.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th January 2018, 08:04 PM

Oh look, one of the Tories promoted last week tried to claim a donation to a local hospice on expenses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/15/minister-africa-promoted-reshuffle-tried-claim-50-donation-local/

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th January 2018, 09:20 AM

She's all heart, and quite the brainbox to boot.....

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 10:20 AM

I'm a little surprised that the Torygraph isn't as much persona non grata here as the Mail...

I saw this story in the Mail too, of course.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th January 2018, 04:16 PM

Is this thought just too cynical even for the Tories : might the Tories call a general election just after Brexit day?

If they win, they'll have a clear 5 years, if not, they could blame Labour if Brexit goes pear-shaped...

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th January 2018, 04:31 PM

I think they'll want to dump May first.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 18th January 2018, 05:22 PM

If they have a 20-point lead they might, otherwise NO CHANCE.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th January 2018, 06:40 PM

Why could they blame Labour? If the election is called after we leave, the Tories will have negotiated the deal.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 18th January 2018, 06:57 PM

Money-grabbing corrupt Tories need to get OUT

Forget Brexit: the REAL taking back of control for the PEOPLE is when they stop voting the way the billionaires tell them to.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 06:53 AM

They might claim that Labour's 'profligacy' was designed to undermine Brexit.




You need to start reading something other than Karl Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'

Posted by: Soy Adrián 19th January 2018, 07:55 AM

What effect could 'profligacy' have when the terms of exit have already been set?


I'm no Marxist (or communist), but you both do Marx a disservice.

Posted by: vidcapper 19th January 2018, 08:01 AM

Quite a lot - If the economy was well-managed, any negative effects of Brexit would be minimised.



Good point - Shia LeMuffQueef makes him look moderate.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 19th January 2018, 07:56 PM

Seen some grumbling tonight about PwC paying out banks first on the Carillion debacle rather than 30,000 small businesses.

As if this is a choice they're making. Insolvency Act dictates what happens when a company is liquidated. In this case the banks with secured loans are being paid out second. (first is the liquidators fees)

The reason these are paid out first is because these debts are secured against an asset. I.e. if you can't repay us then that asset is ours. So what is happening here is that those assets are being sold or the title is being transferred to the holders of secured debt. Pretty much like a bank repossession of a house if the mortgage payments go unpaid. Not all secured debts are held by banks but most are. The banks will have unsecured exposure that is in the same position as the 30,000 in that they get a share of whats left. Shareholders are paid last and the near absolute majority of the time get f*** all.

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 12:42 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5311853/Tory-MP-denies-fiddling-election-expenses.html

Tory MP pleads not guilty to fiddling his expenses when he beat Nigel Farage in the 2015 General Election
Tory MP beat Ukip leader Nigel Farage to South Thanet seat in 2015 election
But authorities claim he did not declare some of his spending during campaign
He denies the charges, as do two of his campaign team, and they will be tried

A Tory MP has denied fiddling his expenses during the 2015 general election campaign.

Craig Mackinlay, 50, and his team are accused of failing to declare expenses during the party's 2015 campaign to see off Ukip leader Nigel Farage in South Thanet, Kent.

Mackinlay secured a majority of just over 2,800 following a tense campaign with 38% of the vote.

But he and members of his campaign allegedly did not declare spending on hotel rooms and advertising materials for Tory party staff, activists and volunteers.

Mackinlay arrived at the Old Bailey today wearing a grey suit, blue tie and white shirt, alongside campaign agent Nathan Gray, 28, and senior Tory campaign director Marion Little, 62.

After confirming his name, Mackinlay denied two charges of a candidate knowingly making a false declaration of his election expenses.

Mackinlay's wife Kati sat in the public gallery as he entered his not guilty pleas.

Gray denied one count of using a false instrument to make a false expenses declaration, and one count of making a false declaration.

Little denied three charges, two connected to aiding and abetting Mackinlay in his alleged wrongdoing, and one connected to Gray.

The charges all relate to their campaign ahead of the June 2015 election.

Mr Justice Anthony Edis earlier set the trial date for May 14, with an estimated length of six weeks.

Mackinlay, of Ramsgate, Kent, denies two counts of a candidate knowingly making a false declaration of his election expenses.

Gray, of Cranbrook, Kent, denies making a false declaration in relation to his role as Mackinlay's agent and using a false instrument.

Little, of Ware, Hertforshire, denies two charges of aiding and abetting Mackinlay in his alleged wrongdoing, and one like charge relating to Gray.

All three were released on bail ahead of a further hearing on February 12.

***************************

Perhaps the judge will nullify the result and declare Farage the winner...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 01:36 PM

As has been pointed out before, the result has been superseded. Whatever makes you feel better, though...

Posted by: vidcapper 26th January 2018, 02:37 PM

Pointed out by me - but no-one here ever gets my jokes...

Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th January 2018, 02:53 PM

That's because they're not funny.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th January 2018, 10:32 AM

It's Brexit-related but it's also Tory Lie related by a senior Tory MP in charge of the most important event in our lives right now (and for the future), so how about a little light relief?

"Photo of David Davis:

Have I Got News For You
‏
Verified account

@haveigotnews
18h18 hours ago
More
"I promise you Britain will be free to make its own trade deals as soon as we leave the EU" says man who promised Britain would have completed its own trade deals by the time it leaves the EU."

Posted by: vidcapper 31st January 2018, 10:59 AM

UK mass surveillance programme ruled unlawful as campaigners call for overhaul of 'snooper's charter'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-surveillance-digital-gchq-snooping-charter-court-unlawful-intelligence-security-services-a8185176.html

Ben Wallace, the security minister, said: "Communications data is used in the vast majority of serious and organised crime prosecutions and has been used in every major security service counter-terrorism investigation over the last decade.

"It is often the only way to identify paedophiles involved in online child abuse as it can be used to find where and when these horrendous crimes have taken place.

************************

I suggest Ben Wallace should be made to read that famous quote by Benjamin Franklin : “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Posted by: Suedehead2 31st January 2018, 11:06 AM

Ben Wallace seems incapable of spotting the difference between targeted surveillance and blanket surveillance.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 31st January 2018, 12:58 PM

Mass indiscriminate surveillance should never be acceptable. If you can prove to a judge you have sufficient reason to tap someone’s comms then by all means go ahead. Otherwise the right to privacy should take precedence. I know the old adage of “if you’ve nothing to hide..” but that’s not a good enough reason for mass surveillance

Posted by: Suedehead2 31st January 2018, 01:39 PM

The appropriate response to the lazy "If you've got nothing to hide..." argument is to ask them when it would be convenient to instal cameras throughout their home.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st February 2018, 03:10 PM

What happens if they call that bluff, and say 'I wouldn't mind'?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st February 2018, 07:30 PM

call their bluff and install them. Costs virtually nothing these days and it can be streamed live.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st February 2018, 10:23 PM

Get them to sign a release first. You want that permission in writing so they can't sue you when you start making bank off the livestream

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st February 2018, 10:38 PM

I'm not sure there'd be that much demand for a live stream from Gove's bedroom

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 2nd February 2018, 06:48 AM

Different strokes for different folks! People get their rocks off to all sorts of things

Although yes I can’t imagine Gove being a high seller.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd February 2018, 09:57 AM

Dunno, the Exorcist vomit scene was pretty popular....

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 3rd February 2018, 03:08 PM

So a Jacob Rees Mogg supporter (ane not part of the 1%, so bizarre he supports him!) punched a female protestor in the face. This government is a shambles.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 3rd February 2018, 05:19 PM

Ah, THAT'S why the BBTory is acting like penguins and Spice Girls are the biggest news ever. They are covering for rhe government and not showing a mass march on London protesting against Jeremt Hunt's NHS privatisation.

Shameful.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 07:12 AM

You know if they did cover that though, they'd be accused of anti-Tory bias,

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 4th February 2018, 08:35 AM

By reporting ACTUAL NEWS AND EVENTS rather than just praising the Tories every chance they get?

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 09:54 AM

Are we watching the *same* BBC?

Seriously though, I'd hate to be the news director of the BBC - whatever political stories you choose to run, you'll be accused of bias by the other side.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 4th February 2018, 10:09 AM

If you actively promote the Tories, showing ALL of Theresa May's speech but ignoring Corbyn rallies ... until AFTER the election, when they were somehow shocked we did not want the Landed Gentry anymore, and actively IGNORE HUGE LONDON PROTESTS in favour of showing penguins, and have a revolving door between the Tories and BBC, then that is bias.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 4th February 2018, 10:14 AM

Reports in the Sunday Times that Boris is going to challenge May soon with Gove as Deputy and Rees-Mogg his Chancellor. Boris's dream team! Go Boris. He can't be any worse than May surely.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 4th February 2018, 10:41 AM

He is atrocious, truly TERRIBLE.

Who voted for these bumbling overpriviliged Eton dolts?

Embarrassing. A second Trump.

However, anythin to split the Tories and get them out.

(Also that team makes me VOM )

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th February 2018, 10:42 AM

Oh yes he can, he's useless and a liar and doesn't care a hoot about people, hoping to distract them with whimsy.

All of them hate the poor and Rees-Mogg especially benefit "scroungers", so be careful what you wish for...

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th February 2018, 01:20 PM

Johnson's special talent is that he would be even worse than May. His only priority is his own ego, an ego even bigger than his massive waist size. Mogg's priority as Chancellor would be to create some more tax avoidance schemes for himself and his rich chums.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th February 2018, 02:45 PM

Fat-shaming - how un-PC of you...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th February 2018, 08:08 PM

just so you don't think I'm making it up about Rees-Mogg:

Voting Record:

How Jacob Rees-Mogg voted on Welfare and Benefits #

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax") Show votes
16 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2012–2014
Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices Show votes
0 votes for, 5 votes against, in 2013
Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability Show votes
0 votes for, 14 votes against, 1 absence, between 2011–2016
Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support Show votes
4 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2012
Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits Show votes
52 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2012–2016
Consistently voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed Show votes
0 votes for, 9 votes against, between 2011–2014
Share a screenshot of these votes: Share


Very Victorian.

Posted by: Suedehead2 4th February 2018, 09:46 PM

It just serves to underline what a liar and a fraud he is. He claims to be a keen cyclist and to run regularly. Does he look like he get a lot of exercise to you, or does he look more like someone who only exercises if there are cameras present?

Posted by: vidcapper 5th February 2018, 06:20 AM

Surely you're not saying it is OK to break '-isms' as long as it's someone you don't like?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th February 2018, 11:23 AM

I note you haven't answered the question. Do you think Johnson is a keep-fit enthusiast? Or do you think he is lying?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th February 2018, 11:36 AM

Unlike race, sexuality and gender - your weight is something YOU have control over, so Johnson deserves the hatred, particularly as Suedehead points out he blatantly lies and uses photo-ops to put forward a public image that is contrived/fake. IMO that is very illuminating and why I have never trusted the man on ANYthing he says.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th February 2018, 11:45 AM

He is a politician, therefore he *is* a liar.




Somehow I don't think that 'defence' would do any good if you said it about Diane Abbott...

Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th February 2018, 11:57 AM

You are aware presumably that Dianne Abbott gets around 45% of all abuse sent to female MPs, the majority racially motivated and some of it incited by that awful paper/website that you read every day.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th February 2018, 12:21 PM

I am well aware of that - but I was responding to Suedehead's apparent suggestion that it is OK to abuse someone because of their weight, as long as they are a politician & a liar.

As for 'that awful newspaper' - the Mail does not *create* racist morons - they are already out there, and, correct me if I'm wrong, the Mail has never racially abused Ms Abbott.
They hardly need to, when she's as gaffe prone as Boris Johnson!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th February 2018, 12:25 PM

*Cough* Darren Osborne *Cough*

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th February 2018, 12:32 PM

As I've said before, the attitude that "all politicians lie" is the sort of lazy thinking that has got us into this mess. Cameron clearly decided that, if people expected politicians to lie, he might as well go ahead and do so on a regular basis. It is still the case that most politicians do NOT lie. Unfortunately, a high proportion of those who do are in the Cabinet.

As for Dianne Abbott, most of the hatred towards her is clearly racist.

Posted by: vidcapper 5th February 2018, 04:16 PM

It's not lazy, it's realistic - problem is on the occasions they do tell the truth, no-one believes them - it's the 'Boy who cried wolf' syndrome.

Are you saying that the reporting of Diane Abbott's gaffes are disguised racism, then?

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th February 2018, 04:30 PM

You missed the point. Still, there's a D in the day so it is to be expected.

Before Cameron, it was rare for a politician to tell a blatant lie but that didn't stop people parroting the lazy cliche that politicians always lie. With his constant lies, Cameron has encouraged others - principally May, Johnson, Gove etc. - to follow in his footsteps.

Dianne Abbott is hardly alone in making the odd gaffe. You could fill a book with Johnson's cock-ups. However, Abbtt's get far more coverage and result in her being the target pop even more vitriol. The same does not apply to the gaffes made by May, Johnson, Hammond, etc. etc.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 5th February 2018, 04:31 PM

Yes, yes they are.

They focused on her minor 'gaffes' when Boris Johnson has had FAAAAAR worse on a Daily Basis, as has Gove or lying through his back teeth privatising overlord Hunt, or Mad May - 'nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!'

And it is lazy. Politicians should never outright lie. We now have a case where voting for Tories is voting for NHS privatisation, but as they lie and the BBC etc are skewed right wing, a lot of people don't even realise this. Saying one thin and doing the other invalidates your mandate ... not that the Tories have one.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 5th February 2018, 04:32 PM

Lmao we essentially made the same post at the same time!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 5th February 2018, 04:54 PM

Exactly, and it is being damaged further by people like Rees-Mogg accusing civil servants within the treasury of 'fiddling the books' based on nothing more than him not getting the answer he would have liked.

There is a reason 'post-truth' was declared word of the year in 2016, and its consequences will be felt for some time to come I fear.

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th February 2018, 11:45 PM

At the weekend a speech by Jacob Rees-Mogg was interrupted by protesters chanting slogans. There was a scuffle and one of the protestors (a woman) was punched. The government's response was to announce that there should be a review to consider whether new laws against intimidation are required. Also over the last few days a man has been convicted of trying to mow down Muslims and also plotting to attack Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan. The government response - silence. Another man has been convicted of plotting to attack a gay pride march. Government response - silence.

Here are a few more incidents where the Tory response (whether in government or opposition) has fallen some way short of demanding new laws.

A Labour MP was murdered by a right wing extremist.
Another Labour MP was attacked and seriously injured.
A man working for a Lib Dem MP was murdered in the constituency office.

All MPs, of course, should be protected from violent attacks. However, Mogg wasn't actually attacked physically. There are already public order offences on the statute book aimed, in part, at protecting freedom of speech. I can't help worrying about what sort of restrictions the government have in mind.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 06:43 AM

Very droll.

ISTM part of it must be that they are under greater scrutiny than ever before?



So is that a yes or no to the question I asked?



They have a stronger case to govern than Labour, at least.

I would suggest that politicians be connected to polygraphs & electric shocks whenever they make a public statement, except that would mean we'd be having by-elections every day.




So the point you are making is that the Tories take attacks on their own people more seriously than on others?

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th February 2018, 09:52 AM

Any party in power - or that aspires to be in power - should take all politically=motivated attacks seriously. When they appear to take a few people shouting more seriously than murder or attempted murder, they make themselves look as if they only care about themselves.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 10:34 AM

I didn't think to check this before, but was that response an official statement, or an unattributed comment by a 'government spokesperson'?




That's why 'power corrupts...' is more of a truism than a cliche.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th February 2018, 11:01 AM

The statement about a law change came from a minister - I can't remember which one.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 6th February 2018, 12:43 PM

The Tories and the establishment act like a One Party State once they are in power. They use the power strutures and media, including the BBC, which the right wing claim is biased to the left to police it, a classic right wing tactic, to cling to power. It is hard to get rid of them once the Landed Gentry get in.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th February 2018, 02:53 PM

Why not just change your screen name to Karl Marx and have done with it...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 6th February 2018, 09:50 PM

Karl just wasn't as witty as Groucho, as engaging as Harpo, as handsome as Zeppo, as partayyyy as Chico or as tuneful as Richard though.....

I'd plump for Groucho myself.

Posted by: vidcapper 7th February 2018, 06:52 AM

Very droll - but the point is that Shia LeMuffQueef still sees the upper-classes as they were at the start of the 19th C, but in reality their wings have been greatly clipped since then.

Also, he doesn't seem to grasp that many people genuinely believe that the Tories are better at running the economy than Labour - and as a Remainer, surely a healthy economy should be high on his list of priorities?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 7th February 2018, 12:51 PM

well you might have a point about the landed gentry being clipped somewhat, but the arguments about running the economy are a matter of opinion.

Mine is that Tories created the world banking crisis which dropped non-rich people in the shit while the theiveing gets got away with it. Thatcher promoted bigger banks with more power and less legislation. labour got into problems by going along with it, not by adopting less laissez-faire attitudes. The horrific cutbacks resulting are Tory by and large, and it hasn't worked, debt is still massive. Banks still owe billions. Private debt is huge. Rich people avoid taxes. Nothing that has happened to the economy is free from Tory policy for at least 40 years, and alrage part of the good stuff is EU based and no thanks to the Rees-Mogg's of this world. The irony is that people who do the worst from it fail to see the blinding obvious.

Of course we'll all be rolling in non-EU cash in 12 months time, the NHS getting 350m a week extra, superb deals with China making us all rich, and everyone's wage packet rocketing skywards...

Posted by: vidcapper 7th February 2018, 02:53 PM

But what is the alternative to austerity - Corbyn's idea of spending until the country's 'credit card' is maxed out?



My sarcasm detector just exploded...

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 7th February 2018, 02:58 PM

The Tories are HORRENDOUS at managing the economy - utterly HORRENDOUS.

I don't believe the media lies on it, or the Tory ones for that matter.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 7th February 2018, 03:24 PM

Lazy, tired and inaccurate analogy.

Labour's spending plans would restrict day to day spending to current levels and the big investments would be in infrastructure, which is clearly in need of it and has been shown to generate more money than is ploughed into it.

Even the relentlessly low-spend, anti-government Republicans in the US are preparing an infrastructure bill which would see trillions spent on new schemes.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th February 2018, 03:46 PM

You do love your straw-man arguments don't you? I'd suggest actually reading the 2017 Labour manifesto (or at least the main suggestions/solutions) rather than an interpretation of it by papers that are ran by wealthy, non-domicile, tax evading men who have an ever-so-slight VESTED interest in keeping things as they currently are.

As suggested above big investments in infrastructure would help to grow the economy, particularly if we got over this obsession with London being the centre of everything and ditched HS2 for better rail and road infrastructure for our northern cities such as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Sheffield.

By the way that 'maxing out the credit card' line from the Tories is really frustrating, especially since it is just about the only thing keeping our economy going at the moment (look at household debt for instance)!

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 7th February 2018, 04:06 PM

That Tory line he keeps repeating equates household finances with an economy, which is a totally incorrect equivalency.

The Labour manifesto is fully costed. The Tory one just bunged billions to the DUP and wants fervent privatisation and the laughable trickle-down theory.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th February 2018, 04:14 PM

Exactly. Japan has something like 250% of debt to GDP since the 1990s (now at ¥1,000,000,000,000,000 - that's 1 quadrillion yen and counting). You don't see them worrying about it that much...

Posted by: vidcapper 8th February 2018, 06:49 AM

Says the guy who thinks Venezuela is an example to look up to!




I know how much a Rolls Royce costs, but that doesn't mean I could afford one!

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 8th February 2018, 02:56 PM

When did I say that?

Do we HAVE to retread the argument of Venezuela is NOT a shining example/ sanctions/ dictator / unstable vs the more socialist European states, especially Finland atm, especially when Corbyn proposes Keynesian economics? Such a boring and easily refutable right wing talking point.

Yes, because yours is a household budget. Yours is not the country's economy, and they are not /=/ the same. At all.

The Tories are pitiful at the economy. Look at the state it's in - look at how look it took to recover. Look at how it is the slowest growing, look at how in terms of wage growth it's down there with GREECE. The rich do VERY well for themselves under the Tories ... but that's because they're plutocrats. The economy suffers, because their right wing cornerstone of trickle-down economics does. not. work.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 8th February 2018, 06:23 PM

Bringing up Venezuela when discussing socialist countries is acceptable. After all, for many years and until fairly recently, the hard left consistently pointed to Venezuela as a shining beacon of a socialist utopia, including, lets not forget, the current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. You can't spend years eulogizing Venezuela as a socialist paradise, then suddenly turn around and say it's "No True Scotsman" when it goes tits up. Just like Donald Trump owns the Dow Jones' collapse after spending a year taking credit for its consistent rise, those who praised Venezuela when everything appeared peachy own it now that it's turned into hell on earth.

I will entertain your point about Finland. As you are an expert of Scandinavian economics, demonstrate to me, with evidence taken from reputable sources, that Finland is indeed a socialist country. Please show me evidence of the following areas of the Finnish economy -
- How the health service of Finland is run.
- How much of the infrastructure of Finland is state run, and how much is privately run.
- What the corporation tax rate is in Finland, when it was adjusted to that rate, and how it compares to supposedly capitalist countries.
- What the gap between rich & poor is in Finland, and how it compares to supposedly capitalist countries
- How regulated the market is in Finland, and how it compares to the rest of the world.

As a side note, I note that for a while people tended to point to Sweden as a shining beacon of socialism, but not as much now. Maybe being revealed to have greater market freedom than even the USA caused this?

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 8th February 2018, 06:32 PM

I said MORE socialist, which it is. It is not FULLY socialist, but it has a far greater societal set-up. Portugal, Spain - more socialist. Sweden, Finland, Norway - more socialist. Yes, they are still market economies, but you can't deny that they are FAR MORE socialist, with Finland introducing UBI as well. Their social security system sets it apart. The way those three countries are run is a proto-socialism. Everyone could learn from it.

I never mentioned Venezuela - ever. The reason it went to pot in the first place was US sanctions and cosying up to the wrong world powers, considering its location/ economies of Iran and Russia.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th February 2018, 07:51 AM

Classic : it's always someone else's fault that socialism fails.

How many times does it have to fail before the truth finally sinks in?

Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th February 2018, 11:09 AM

This is symptomatic of the whole problem. The right is desperate to jump on examples like Venezuela despite there being very little relevance given the difference between their and our economies, and at the same time refuses to engage with the fact that their favourite economic metaphor is built on a total lie.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th February 2018, 05:12 PM

So Daniel Hannan claims the Good friday Agreement has "failed".

In the sense that it stopped murders and terrorism that had continued in the UK for decades, and that perennially lying 'Nan, Golem, Rees-Frog & other Tories wished to see continue, I suppose it has been a failure - of what they wanted. That the success and peace that followed and stayed continues to threaten Brexit is purely co-incidence. That the DUP owns the Tory Party and is against sharing power as they should be doing, and also campaigned in favour of Brexit (against the will of the people of Northern island) is also just an unhappy co-incidence.

So, who in the Tory party is the biggest lying toad? I find it very hard to choose actually, quite a dilemma.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th February 2018, 06:21 AM

To be fair, they couldn't know the will of the people of NI until *after* the vote.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 20th February 2018, 06:33 AM

The will of SOME of the people x

Posted by: vidcapper 20th February 2018, 07:43 AM

Average pay across Europe :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage

If you compare UK to say, Poland - our average wage is 2.5 times theirs, so they could hardly be blamed for coming here to take advantage of that.

However Tory insinuations that unemployed Brits are 'lazy' are disingenuous in this context - if there were somewhere *they* could go to earn 2.5 times the money for the same work, do you honestly think they would turn that down??

Posted by: vidcapper 20th February 2018, 07:49 AM

The point is - how many people wanted Brexit could obviously not be determined until *after* the referendum (since finding that out was the whole purpose!), so any claim they campaigned 'against the will of the people' cannot be justified.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th February 2018, 08:07 AM

Now they know and continue to choose policies against the will of the majority of NI

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 20th February 2018, 08:14 AM

Those numbers are meaningless in a vacuum. Comparative cost of living stats are required to make decent comparisons.

I don't get the point you are making at the end.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th February 2018, 08:19 AM

Now compare pay to cost of living across Europe, throw in how the low-paid jobs give a quality of life for the largely young & healthy people doing them, and their intent to work here temporarily than go back with a better standard of life afforded in a country where, for example, homes don't cost 10 times your annual wage.

Picking and choosing statistics proves nothing unless you look at the whole picture. Tax? Cost of goods? Why do Polish work in most other EU countries (not just the UK where it has strong historical ties)? Is it that Poland has no jobs? Why is it the cleaning and field labourer jobs can't get filled by British workers (low paid) - this is the words of the people looking for workers? Why is it they PREFER to employ better-educated foreigners than poorly-educated unreliable British people? Is it that they don't turn up for work, sack them, and they end up back looking for a job with bad references? Is it that the foreign workers turn up for work no matter what, out of sheer gratitude, and work hard long hours without complaining, so don't get sacked?

The facts speak for themselves. Some British people don't apply for low-paid jobs (and they have the opportunity to go abroad and work just as much as the Polish do, say, to Denmark, where wages are also higher than the UK - as is the cost of living). Why is that they prefer to stay on benefits or gain supplemental tax-payer-supported incomes? If employers have to employ foreigners ask yourself why that is? How will stopping EU citizens coming over affect that? So many questions, so few answers...

Posted by: vidcapper 20th February 2018, 09:57 AM

That can't be avoided, as the decision was made for the UK as a whole.



I was waiting for you say that :

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2016&region=150

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th February 2018, 11:31 AM

To be just as fair, the result in Northern Ireland was not a surprise. They were always expected to vote Remain.

Posted by: vidcapper 20th February 2018, 11:37 AM

Because they more Europhillic, or because they thought they had more to lose?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 20th February 2018, 12:42 PM

Yes it can be avoided because their duty is for the peace process to remain and to govern, not prop up a bitterly divided Tory government for cash.

Thanks. That exactly supports what I was saying, wages might be much lower in Poland but the cost of living is much lower too, so wages in the UK while paying out on rent and food and bills etc doesn't make you that much better off except if you intend to try and save and then return.

It also supports my statement that denmark is higher, and has the fabulous news that the non-EU Switzerland (which pays through the nose for access) has the highest cost of living by far. Even with all those shady bank accounts. Looking good for the UK eh?

Posted by: vidcapper 25th February 2018, 06:51 AM

Millions of workers face having to pay hundreds of pounds more each year in 'radical' new plan to 'tax the over-40s'

Plans would mean a considerable National Insurance increase for the over-40s
They have been put forward by ex-Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green
He was forced to resign over claims of inappropriate behaviour and laptop porn
MP plans to use 'new backbench freedom' to tackle UK's social care crisis

Radical plans to make millions of workers aged 40 and over pay hundreds of pounds extra in tax every year to fund the growing number of people who will live to 100 have been put forward by ex-Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5431067/All-40s-pay-old-age-tax-says-Damian-Green.html#ixzz586GQ35U6

**********************

I suspect articles like this are the only reason other controversial figures are still in the cabinet. Just imagine what Boris might come up with if relieved of the doctrine of Collective Responsibility!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th February 2018, 08:57 AM

More likely it's a concerted attack on him personally for having the affront to not toeing the Daily Mail line on Hard Brexit. Even if not, he's not in the government so it doesn't deserve any more or less space than any other MP making suggestions.

Problems with the logic: people under 40 will also live longer and get dementia. You can't single out one disease and try and fund it by one section of the community. The NHS is designed to pool money and allocate resources. That the Tories have chosen to exclude dementia as "care" and not "health" is a political choice. You get cancer or a failing kidney you get assistance. You get dementia you don't (unless you have used up all your life savings and property to pay for it). Speaking as a carer (who hasnt put his parent into a care home) here's the full list of assistance we get and have had:

mum: £60 a week to assist (that pays for 2 hours of help with showering)

me: a free cinema ticket once a week (I haven't applied for it)

So, where exactly is the cost to the state that all of this is supposedly costing society?

It's in the cost of care homes, largely privately-run at around £750 a week. Despite Tory obsessions with private sector being cheaper that isn't the case, council-run is and always has been cheaper, just as professional (more so in likelihood as they get monitored) and more secure from going bankrupt...

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th February 2018, 09:05 AM

The paragraphs you quote are a perfect example of today's journalism. They use three paragraphs to say exactly the same thing three times but with no detail whatsoever. That's not a dig at the Daily Mail; other news sources are just as bad.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 25th February 2018, 08:52 PM

Liam Fox: Jeremy Corbyn risked undermining UK security (based on an unsubstantiated claim from a Communist-era-spy) despite being a nobody who knew nothing at the time.

Liam Fox: sacked for actually undermining security having his bestie non-government business-chum Werrity (that wascally wabbit) sit in on key foreign meetings involving UK military secrets.

Kettle - frying pan - black arse......

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th March 2018, 07:36 PM

pretending to a) care about poor people and b) not being racist, and then

c) using that private education so badly you can't avoid looking like a blatant racist (who has incidentally financial links to the main Russian bank who must not mind people who get rich on cancersticks as well)
‏

"@Otto_English
13h13 hours ago

Genuinely a bit shocked to see Jacob Rees-Mogg refer to the "less well off" in our "indigenous communities." He means "white" doesn't he - because if he'd meant "poorer people" in general he could have just said it."

a bit like not believing in abortion on moral grounds and then not giving a toss about people dying from lack of decent health care access, or pushing cancer-causing drugs.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 31st March 2018, 09:25 AM

It's Easter break so Business Insider has a handy check list:

May's government quietly slips out a long trail of inconvenient announcements as MPs head for recess.

Government accused of trying to bury bad news over the Easter break.

Damning reports on child refugees, and modern slavery are held back until MPs are leaving Parliament.

The government quietly announces a major U-turn on benefits.

New figures reveal social housing is vanishing under 'right to buy'.

Posted by: vidcapper 31st March 2018, 10:02 AM

OK, this practice is underhand, but hardly exclusive to the Tories - it's been going on for decades.

Posted by: Suedehead2 31st March 2018, 10:25 AM

It has indeed being going on for decades (at least since Thatcher's time, probably longer) but that doesn't make it right. It is an affront to democracy that so many of these things are published at a time when they cannot be debated by Parliament.

They have also sneaked out something else likely to be opposed by the tabloids for the simple reason that it is quite sensible. They are trying to reduce the number pf prescriptions written for conditions such as dandruff and athlete's foot which will soon sort themselves out if left untreated.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 31st March 2018, 10:46 AM

You know how much I hate the inept and immoral Tories, but that last one IS sensible. They should also stop pharmacies overcharging the NHS, so take off Ibuprofen and cough medicines from prescriptions.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 2nd April 2018, 02:54 PM

Reports are out that children have to put food in their pickets for later at school. Teachers are helping them with uniform and food costs and even Xmas presents.

This is atrocious.

Meanwhile the Tories are laughing and baying in parliament like an Etonian debate club. Reece Mogg has £250 million and the tax payers are paying is it £16 mil for his manor refurbishments? Johnson has his millions. One said the other week she was better than a journalist as she has more money. Mad May or course does nothing but offer up the NHS on a silver platter to Trump and laugh like a penguin in parliament at MPs complaining about poverty.

This inept and morally bankrupt and ruthless government of the Landed Gentry needs to go. Now.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd April 2018, 02:58 PM

Quite so - picketers should be providing their own food...



Because that worked so well for France when they tried it?

Posted by: Queef of Peace 2nd April 2018, 02:59 PM

No.

Egalitarian comment.

Please state what about having millionaires in power and starving children is good for the country? Get them out.

They call me a saint when I give food to the poor. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd April 2018, 03:03 PM

You really need a new spell-checker.

Posted by: Queef of Peace 2nd April 2018, 03:12 PM

Poor*

So am I a communist for highlighting this vile inequality?

We have starving children and homeless people and food banks yet have plutocrats with millions ruling us and spending billions to prop up their One Party State government. Spending millions on refurbishments of posh houses.

We have the BBC so biased that even GoggleBox is reporting on it! Let that sink in. Gogglebox has their people watching BBC news now due to its bias...

Starving. Children. Enough is enough. It's time for them to go.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd April 2018, 04:39 PM

well, cuts for the poor, followed by actual cuts for the rich - that's the risk you take when you have money and power and abuse it....

Mob rule is ugly, but then so is having an underclass who feels aggrieved.

That said, back when I was a kid we had free school meals - it was a ticket we had to hand in to get dinner. Our diet wasn't fabulous, but we weren't starving, and it's a big leap to state that children today in the UK are starving - low income families tend to eat cheap crap, so obesity is more of an issue.

Plus: Tesco, Asda, every night, food on sale about to go out of date for next to nothing. I just don't believe local authorities would allow children to be starving, they have an obligation to step in and do something about it - it's the LAW! All anyone has to do is report Child A says they are starving and sit back and watch the shit hit the local authority fan.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd April 2018, 05:32 AM

Once again you go completely OTT, due to your obsession with the Tories.

The reason socialism doesn't work, is :

1. There is little incentive for the poor to work because they can get the gov't to steal for them.

2. There is little incentive for the rich to work because the gov't will steal most of what they earn - and eventually they will simply emigrate, taking their money with them.

Like it or not, we need people with money in our country, as they are the ones with capital to invest in new, job-generating projects.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 4th April 2018, 12:13 PM

Just to point out:

Socialism doesn't say people have the freedom to leach off the state indefinitely. It would though presumably force you to take a job you might hate if there isn't one you would rather do (same as capitalism, except they tolerate long-term "jobseekers" less), and without the prospect of career advancement there's no incentive to strive hard

there are rich in every political system ever made, they just pretend things are more evenly distributed. Everyone pays tax. Except the rich it seems. People live abroad and pay little personal tax (hi Daily Mail owner!). They should be paying the appropriate tax rate on everything they earn in the UK. Pure socialism though is a loser because as you say incentive goes along with ownership and it doesn't take into account the tendency of those in control towards corrupt "I know better" attitudes. In a democracy people can choose to have it in part (say for transport), in full or not at all and it will be in a constant state of flux. If the choice is removed then it's no longer a democracy it's something else entirely. We used to have tax rates of 95% for the rich, that didn't work, so now we don't

Posted by: Popchartfreak 5th April 2018, 10:20 AM

Sometimes decisions made politically may possibly have links to an increase in crime and specifically in one case a murder rate amongst young people:



"@Petersbrooking
19h19 hours ago
More
Paul Sharp Retweeted Andrew Pierce
There used to be four police stations in Hackney. There is now one. And who closed them all? Boris Johnson.

And who cut funding for the Metropolitan police by £600m from 2010-16? Theresa May when she was Home Secretary."

PS I'm not claiming it's the only cause, but it certainly won't have helped the situation to have less police policing and investigating....

Posted by: vidcapper 10th April 2018, 05:41 AM

Not really a 'lie or deceit', but still amusing...

Tories ridiculed in Manchester after misspelling Conservatives on local election leaflet

An eagle-eyed Labour candidate in Trafford spotted the 'Conseratives' leaflet
Stephane Savary quipped it might explain failures in Tory control of the council
The Conservatives are fighting to retain control of the Trafford Borough Council

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5595301/Tories-ridiculed-Manchester-misspelling-Conservatives.html

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th April 2018, 04:45 PM

The campaign is barely underway and we've already had the first embarrassing cock-up Still plenty of time for other partied to provide us with some more entertainment.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th April 2018, 07:03 PM

...and if I can pull myself away from the gripping news of a typo in a pamphlet....

the Tories have awarded fishing rights off South Georgia to a Norwegian fleet of 4 ships, putting at risk jobs, British ships and millions lost to the local economy of the Falklands Islands. So much for supporting British fishermen. Source: Private Eye. Papers with no mention of this: all of them.

Co-incidentally Norway has announced support for keeping trading relations the same during the 2019/20 period between Brexit and final Brexit.

A cycnic might suspect that the Keep Britain British campaign has been replaced with Sell Off Britain At All Costs We Need The Cash Upfront For The Forthcoming Shitstorm.

Oddly, English farmers appear to be on the road to getting no support from Michael Gove whatsoever, while Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish farmers via their own governments. So English farmers are set to be undercut by subsidised produce from within the UK, never mind the rest of the world. Govey and Foxy seem keen to allow pesticides and animal-unfriendly husbandry/slaughter to bring in cheaper food so those pesky NHS leeches all die off a bit quicker and save those rich people dining on caviar and the best imports a happier longer life bereft of poor old people.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th April 2018, 07:40 PM

That would be news to us.

#Tumbleweedsonthehill

Posted by: vidcapper 11th April 2018, 05:18 AM

On the subject of the local elections, for the 2nd time in 3 years there's no-one I want to vote for - it is a two-way contest between the Tories & LibDems.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 11th April 2018, 07:18 AM

Oopsy! Still, the billion pounds should help....

Posted by: Popchartfreak 13th April 2018, 03:55 PM

Poor old Jeremy C Hunt forgot to mention that he'd bought 7 properties in his annual list of declarations of interests.

Who among us hasn't forgotten to mention we own 7 flats we bought 6 months earlier. Showing signs of early onset dementia, clearly. In fact his entire political career so far suggests it's not so early-onset as I can't make sense of the illogic and babble that comes out of his mouth. As a carer of an alzheimers parent getting no NHS help or money, I'm allowed to say that based on many years of observation and practical experience...

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th April 2018, 04:29 PM

So the racist policies pursued (booting out British citizens legally living in the UK for nearly as long as I've been born) by Theresa May, for 8 years, are a source of "regret" for her - after 110 MP's, 200,000 signatures and begging from Commonwealth countries that she needs desperately for post-EU trade deals.

She's all heart and soul, and not at all cold and calculating - nor rubbish at being an MP, never mind a PM. She has no principles, or else a bit thick when it comes to assessing consequences, even when she takes weeks to make a decision.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th April 2018, 05:50 AM

This is part of the problem of drawing up blanket laws - there are always unintended consequences, which is why means need to exist to cover exceptional circumstances.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th April 2018, 11:06 AM

No, it's what happen when a minster is more concerned about getting favourable headlines in the tabloids than she is about natural justice.

Posted by: vidcapper 17th April 2018, 11:27 AM

Well, that *too*.

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th April 2018, 10:58 AM

The last Home Secretary set up an enquiry into child abuse involving Westminster politicians. The first appointment as chair of the enquiry had to resign after it became clear that the Attorney General at the time of many of the alleged offences - and, therefore, possibly somebody involved in any cover-up - was her brother. The next person appointed had to resign when it was revealed that she was a friend of the wife of one of the politicians facing allegations of child abuse. Appointment number three resigned when she decided she wasn’t up to the job. In the course of this shambles a load of files relating to the allegations mysteriously disappeared.

The last Home Secretary also closed down an enquiry into the suspected murder of Alexander Litvinenko, an opponent of Putin. The reason given was that it was “not in the national interest” to continue the enquiry. An enquiry that was likely to have concluded that the Kremlin was involved.

The very same former Home Secretary, in her haste to get favourable headlines in the right-wing press, introduced the anti-immigration legislation which has been utterly discredited in the last few days. Under her watch, masses of paper work that could have helped thousands of people easily prove their entitlement to remain in the UK was destroyed.

It really is time the Prime Minister had words with this serial bungler. It’s not as if she will need to make an appointment.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th April 2018, 11:07 AM

As always, it is a case of 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th April 2018, 04:59 PM

Opposition politicians really should be more careful what they say. This is what Theresa May said when she was on the opposition benches.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th April 2018, 07:38 PM

Her former Right-Hand Prop, Dick Timothy, who headed that marvellous General election campaign for her has also been out suggesting in the media that the Vans instructing illegal immigrants to piss off home were actually not supported by Mrs May. No, it seems she was against the idea and some nasty (un-named and un-blamed) minions decided to go ahead with it after she'd said no, while she was on holiday (destination and timing unclear) and utterly totally not anywhere near the internet or news feeds or in touch with anyone back home that might have told her about the blatant disregard of her instructions, and definitely not anywhere near a phone to make enquiries about her staff making her look like such a callous, heartless robot who can't even consider the effect her policies would have consequences for in inflicting misery on British citizens.

She was SO shocked to find out about the vans that she stopped them driving the streets immediately many months later, and thoughtfully failed to mention to her colleagues running other departments that she is just a figurehead and not in control of her blatantly nasty staff.

You know you are shit at PR when you make the person you are trying to help avoid blame for their actions look and sound even more incompetent and useless at their job than they already appeared.

Wonder why he was fired.....

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th April 2018, 12:59 PM

The story about her being on holiday doesn't even score as much as zero out of ten on the plausibility scale. Government advertising campaigns don't go from vague idea to fruition in a week or two unless they are a response to an emergency. Therefore, Mayhem is expecting us to believe that the planning for the racist vans continued despite her opposition to the idea. That planning supposedly continued without her knowing anything about it so that it could be put into action just as soon as she nipped out of the office to go for a few walks. This "I was in charge but I had no idea what was going on" line is, of course, known as the Rebekah Brooks defence.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st April 2018, 06:08 AM

Not all Windrush documents destroyed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5640647/Arrival-records-tens-thousands-Windrush-generation-found.html

Windrush generation arrival records are FOUND: Tens of thousands of landing cards are found in the National Archives despite fears May's Home Office shredded the lot
Landing slips of tens of thousands of Windrush generation immigrants found
The find strengthen the cases for those trying to prove they are British citizens
Arrivals at ports until 1960, more than 85,000 people arriving from Caribbean
The Home Office destroyed its cache of landing slips eight years ago

****************************

There's still the unresolved question of when, and thus who, ordered the documents destroyed?

Obviously that pales into utter insignificance compared to the distress & loss caused, but politically we should still be told who to assign the blame to.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st April 2018, 10:58 AM

The question of who ordered the documents be destroyed (whether a minister or not) is just a distraction. The real issue is the dreadful legislation steered through parliament by one Theresa May. That's what happens when you out-source policy-making to the Daily Mail.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st April 2018, 11:02 AM

The government knows exactly how long you have worked in the UK because your pension depends on it as do taxes paid tv licences national insurance number issued. These are all feeble excuses fir trying to get rid of British citizens when other records exist. It's bullshit. May did exactly what she wanted to do ans did nothing about it when it was reportedly happening. She was either stupid or cruel. No other option.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st April 2018, 11:26 AM

As I said.

So, who *are* you blaming - TM or the DM?



AIUI, the problem is not with proving how long they have lived/worked in the UK, as numerous records of all kinds exist that would demonstrate that - but whether they arrived here legally in the first place?

But in any case, an amnesty for people who can prove they have been in the UK for,say, over 30 years, would be the easiest, and most humanitarian way of dealing with the problem.

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st April 2018, 11:42 AM

How about both?

Posted by: vidcapper 21st April 2018, 01:07 PM

But the DM doesn't control how MP's vote...

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st April 2018, 01:25 PM

Tory MPs are not exactly known for their willingness to defy the party whips.

Posted by: vidcapper 21st April 2018, 01:54 PM

Their willingness to do so is probably in proportion to their HoC majority (or not, this time round).

Posted by: vidcapper 21st April 2018, 02:45 PM

I see the Mail doesn't have a monopoly on factual errors...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/21/stuck-jamaica-pension-house-kids-uk-windrush-britain

'V Anderson, who has just stepped off the the flight, is looking dapper. Now 74, the retired structural engineer from South West London was 14 when he arrived in the UK in early 1962.'

2018-1962=56 years. What's 14+56?

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st April 2018, 04:37 PM

Maybe he's related to that black man Cameron met in the 2010 election campaign. The 40-year-old who had spent 30 years in the armed services.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 21st April 2018, 09:24 PM

If someone is known to have worked for 40 years and have a commonwealth passport it's a case of duuuuuhhhhh!

If they didn't have records on where they came from they wouldn't be able to deport them. Just bullshit excuses for a racist campaign. No white commonwealth citizens were deported or troubled.

Posted by: vidcapper 22nd April 2018, 05:24 AM

Did many of them come over on 'Windrush', then?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 22nd April 2018, 08:34 PM

There are and always have been shitloads of white Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians and non-Commonwealth whites living and working in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom

White English-speaking folk don't usually get targeted, it's those pesky EU citizens or dark-skinned ones or oriental ones coming over here and taking all the best cleaning jobs, bar staff, waiter jobs and fast-food outlet services that should be reserved for white unqualified unskilled people who are just queuing up to do it...

Posted by: Queef of Peace 22nd April 2018, 08:39 PM

So instead of reporting on the three huge Tory scandals right now, the BBC has top stories on straws an Debenham's sales

Well done, BBTory mouth of the government and Tory puppet x

We SO don't think you are the same as RussiaTv or Iranian news propaganda x

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 05:19 AM

You are in good sarcastic form recently.

Posted by: vidcapper 23rd April 2018, 05:20 AM

Three? Which one did I miss?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd April 2018, 11:02 AM

we so don't.

The BBC website politics page today:

UK will leave customs union, insists No 10
Lorry heading to Dover
The government rules out a U-turn on customs after a House of Lords defeat on its Brexit bill.
22 minutes ago
From the section UK Politics 924 comments
Related content
Ministers suffer Lords defeat
MPs to force customs union vote
'Vote will add to pressure'
Full article UK will leave customs union, insists No 10
Jeremy Thorpe
Revealed: Letter that silenced Thorpe
The then Liberal leader's lawyers feared revealing his gay past at his conspiracy-to-murder trial.
Martin Rosenbaum
Freedom of information specialist
3 hours ago
From the section UK Politics
Full article Revealed: Letter that silenced Thorpe
Child with alcoholic parent
£6m pledge for children of alcoholics
The government funding will go towards mental health services and outreach programmes for parents.
3 hours ago
From the section UK 57 comments
Full article £6m pledge for children of alcoholics
Morgan warns Tories over Brexit 'hysteria'
22 April 2018
From the section UK Politics
Full article Morgan warns Tories over Brexit 'hysteria'
Corbyn: PM 'ignored Windrush warnings'
22 April 2018
From the section UK Politics
Full article Corbyn: PM 'ignored Windrush warnings'
Hunt threatens social media with new laws
22 April 2018
From the section UK
Full article Hunt threatens social media with new laws
No-deal Brexit 'disastrous' for food firms
22 April 2018
From the section Business
Full article No-deal Brexit 'disastrous' for food firms
Jones 'not done yet' says Jeremy Corbyn
22 April 2018
From the section Wales politics
Full article Jones 'not done yet' says Jeremy Corbyn
Security services 'to get more power'
22 April 2018
From the section UK
Full article Security services 'to get more power'
Landing cards decision 'made in 2009'
20 April 2018
From the section UK Politics
Full article Landing cards decision 'made in 2009'
No 10 still 'confident' of Irish border deal
20 April 2018
From the section UK Politics 2199 comments
Full article No 10 still 'confident' of Irish border deal
Delayed immigration plans 'due in months'
20 April 2018
From the section UK Politics
Full article Delayed immigration plans 'due in months'


Corbyn is quoted and reported on two articles condemning the PM and the Tories.

The BBC is doing it's job which is reporting. You can argue the above articles could be higher up the rankings in terms of headlines but they pretty obviously take the "hits" on articles as the guide to what they show on the general page, so if the public keep clicking on the London marathon then that's what is the headline.