steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 10:04:34 GMT
Can you imagine at a Westminster finance committee hearing while speaking to representatives of HMRC Jacob Rees Mogg whipping out dick picks of Tony Blair's son. Ladies and gentlemen I present to you Marjorie Taylor Green of the Republican fascist party. youtu.be/_N-Kof2xoxY |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 10:21:01 GMT
NB Ageism is also discrimination but there is historic evidence that older voters are more likely to GOTV Obviously they dont have to work during the day if retired, or look after kiddies as soon as they get home for younger adults. You only need the support of 1/4 the population or so to win. So concentrating on something like pensioners as opposed to workers isnt a bad strategy. And they tend to be the richer side of the population because of amassed lifetime wealth, so that a natural home with the party of the rich. But then labour needs to break the con hold, and so they end up mirroring policies to help the rich pensioners. [/quote] The debate on R4 couple of days ago between younger adult and pensioner was very intersting. Both felt hard done by. Both had an element of justice. While they grew up the now pensioners had a much poorer standard of living in terms of modern consumer goods. Which they know enjoy and feel they bought fairly. But at the same time they also had much more equality of opportunity in those poorer times, and more equality as a right even for those without talent. Its likely the current youngsters will have to work just as hard in their way and will not achieve the relative success of their predecessors. Its very unfair that the current pensioners having acquired wealth no do not want that wealth to go back into general circulation but keep it within their own families. Understandable, but it denies the equality of opportunity they themselves enjoyed. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 10:21:45 GMT
If you want me to be serious, rather than just producing a sound bite, focus groups do tend to tell you what you want to hear, because they are directed. By definition they are asking what we call 'leading questions' and have to be moderated to keep them on the point. I have run them myself, and as a result became very wary of them. You can get two apparently similar groups which head off in completely different directions. PS: I don't understand the little yellow things, so I ignore them. So you have no evidence whatsoever that LAB are focusing on 'aging' or 'northern' voters (unless you consider Stevenage 'Northern') FWIW then 'bigot' is defined as: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially : one who regards or treats the members of a group.. with hatred and intolerance"
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotWhich sounds a lot like you IMO. As for 'little yellow things' then I don't know mercian in person and height isn't a 'protected characteristic'* but 'yellow things'?  Anyway, you're a +1 to the formal 'ignore' list for me. I've ANFIW in 'bigots' and/or those who make stuff up and/or can't substantiate their claims. * www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jul 20, 2023 10:24:33 GMT
domjg: "If the Russians attack civilian shipping or even if a civilian ship is destroyed by a mine we should attack the Black Sea fleet."
Wouldn't the better, and more pro-active rather than re-active, way to do that be to institute a convoy system to escort grain carriers through Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters?
In practice, that would mean defending Odessa and other grain ports from missile attack, using NATO vessels. That would put the responsibility on Putin for initiating a Russia-NATO conflict, rather than NATO being seen to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 10:26:36 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 10:33:07 GMT
Yes, hereditary MPs now. Who'd have thought it? Tony Benn started it.Rees-Mogg may be scouring six safe Tory seats as we speak. He may be hard pressed to find that many soon. Actually George Spencer-Churchill, 5th Duke of Marlborough (whose father the 4th Duke only sat in the Lords), his son George Spencer-Churchill, 6th Duke of Marlborough, his son John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough, His son, Lord Randolph Churchill. His son Sir Winston Churchill, his son Randolph Churchill (MP for Preston 1940-45), his son Winston Churchill (MP for Stretford 1970-1983, MP for Davyhulme 1983-1997). The Wedgwood-Benns as I still think of them are mere newbies at this game of hereditary MPs. Theres lots of examples of members of traditional aristocratic familes becoming elected MPs. Robert Cecil, for example, MP for south dorset to 87, before assuming his title of Marquess of Salisbury and becoming politically active in the house of lords. He descends from Robert Cecil (obviously the clue is in the name), career politician and minister under Elizabeth I. Many of the family in between have ruled the UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 10:40:38 GMT
domjg: "If the Russians attack civilian shipping or even if a civilian ship is destroyed by a mine we should attack the Black Sea fleet."Wouldn't the better, and more pro-active rather than re-active, way to do that be to institute a convoy system to escort grain carriers through Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters? In practice, that would mean defending Odessa and other grain ports from missile attack, using NATO vessels. That would put the responsibility on Putin for initiating a Russia-NATO conflict, rather than NATO being seen to do so. I wonder if Erdogan in his new positioning will offer to escort grain ships through the Black Sea ? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 10:43:30 GMT
domjg: "If the Russians attack civilian shipping or even if a civilian ship is destroyed by a mine we should attack the Black Sea fleet."Wouldn't the better, and more pro-active rather than re-active, way to do that be to institute a convoy system to escort grain carriers through Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Turkish territorial waters? In practice, that would mean defending Odessa and other grain ports from missile attack, using NATO vessels. That would put the responsibility on Putin for initiating a Russia-NATO conflict, rather than NATO being seen to do so. It would be an interesting developmnet. However open to the exact same criticism used by Admiral Fisher at the start of WW1 against Churchill who wanted the british fleet to attack via the dardanelles into the black sea. So a very very similar analogy though that time we were on the same side as Russia. The problem is suitably equipped land based forces are a lot more effective against ships than ships against land based forces. We would have Nato ships sunk, for certain, if the Russians were minded to fight. To defend them effectively we would have to pro actively attack Russian assets. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 10:52:02 GMT
I think Starmer must be on this site, he has gone on Sunak’s unfunded spending promises at PMQs Well of course some of us do have political wisdom to impart: Dear Sir Kid Starver, In the interests of being elected I would suggest that you bring back the death penalty for certain cases, bring in enforced deportation of foreign criminals when their sentences have been served, build more prisons, and increase defence spending. That should sort it. Yours sincerely Mercian Libs have raised support on a policy of legalising currently illegal drugs. Something I notice the SNP are after. The rationale is this might actually cut harm, because much of the harm stems from criminal involvement, plus more people might get to enjoy their sensible use. It seems clear the reason some oppose legalisation is they dont believe others should be allowed to enjoy using such drugs. And again we get a generational divide where the old believe what they learnt when young, and the young currently are learning something different not least because of the massive changes brought by the internet and huge increase in ability for individuals to associate differently. Cant help thinking that in closing youth centres, closing pubs, etc, conservatives helped bring about these changes they dont like, they forced patterns of behaviour to change. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 10:58:52 GMT
If you are worried about inflation, the key is to invest in things that will reduce inflation. Like cheaper energy. Cheaper housing etc. (And it’s not necessarily a minority view, unless a majority were against energy subsidies etc.) Doesn't renewable energy have to be subsidised? Hence it would otherwise be usually more expensive than other energy? Carfrew seems to have the science on his side in arguing we simply adopted the wrong sort of nuclear technology. But the investment costs in changing now would be massive, and as I said it would not be helping our military eforts to be using the safer technology. We often do stuff because of the vast past invetment in getting it right. We will change to renewables because it will be cheaper (well, obviously its cheaper to pick up firewood from the ground and burn it, or get free oil out of the ground, but once these start to run out then more sophisticated technologies take a lead). But the world has seen reason to speed up what have happened anyway, because of climate change and other pollution issues from all this burning. In the Uk the conservative government decidd it wasnt willing to pay to speed this up, and we are seeing the result now, whereas we might have had significantly more renewables, now considered cheap, at the time fuel prices shot up. Which they had been planned to do, just more gently. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 11:06:17 GMT
The Law Society has said the illegal migration bill, expected to be given royal assent today, will be unworkable.
Lubna Shuja, the president of the independent body for solicitors in England and Wales, said:
We have been clear from the start that this legislation threatens to undermine the rule of law and access to justice.
Whilst the act will soon come into force on paper, it will be unworkable in practice because it doesn’t provide solutions to the asylum backlog, and there isn’t capacity in the legal aid sector to provide the immigration advice needed.
The Rwanda removal agreement has been ruled unlawful and is subject to an appeal in the supreme court.
Even if that appeal proves successful, there are no other removal agreements in place. Rwanda alone would not be able to accept anywhere near the number of people who will be scheduled for ‘removal’.
A growing number of people will be left in limbo as they cannot be removed, and they cannot claim asylum.
The cost to the taxpayer will continue to increase as the individuals left in limbo are housed in various accommodation indefinitely. "
When legislation is introduced not to address an issue but simply for far right political grandstanding there's often unintended consequences.
The failure to address the processing backlog combined now with the absurdity of the obtuse refusal to acknowledging the asylum seekers who will continue to arrive as actually asylum seekers, combined with no where to send them to, will inevitably increase those in the UK unable to work, requiring housing and with no determinant date when this situation will change by regime edict.
The xenophobic illegal illegal immigration bill will actually do the polar opposite of what it purports to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 11:11:23 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jul 20, 2023 11:34:55 GMT
I've seen your anthony wells, and raise you trouble ahead for the pound, unherd.com/thepost/gilt-yields-suggest-trouble-ahead-for-the-pound/Trevor has been keen to persuade us to buy gilts, but it seems investors in general are not so keen. The Uk is perceived as having a uniquely bad situation. " One hedge fund manager recently told me that traders are comparing the gilt market to a government bond market in a developing country." "Taking the reported £241 billion number and then modelling a recession driven by a burst property bubble shows that public borrowing tops out at an eye-watering 13.1-15.8%. While there were similar levels of borrowing during 2020 because of the lockdown, this was generally attributed to exceptional circumstances. Yet these numbers suggest that the borrowing in 2020 could easily be repeated in the near future without the need for lockdowns." |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 20, 2023 11:46:58 GMT
wb61 I know that, however the appearance of leniency would have been avoided if the judge had used their discretion to impose an indeterminate sentence with a 12 year minimum term. I think we might be boring others by now. Shall we leave it at that. Indeterminate sentences are no longer legal. They were abolished in 2012. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 20, 2023 12:11:22 GMT
Nice work if you can get it
'New official figures reveal Liz Truss received a severance payment of £18,660 for losing her job after six weeks in office.
Meanwhile her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng received a £16,876 payment for losing his job after just five weeks.
Meanwhile disgraced former minister Chris Pincher received a £7,920 severance payment'
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 20, 2023 12:12:19 GMT
‘Factionalism’ for one person is ‘fighting your corner’ for another. Factionalism gets ugly when it is based upon a divisive and damaging falsehood. Not necessarily. The factionalism between Blairites and Brownites in the New Labour days was extremely toxic and damaging even through it didn't seem to be based on much more than misunderstandings and inflated egos. I honestly don't see the Blair/Brown feud remotely as ugly and damaging as what has been going on over the last eight years. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 20, 2023 12:24:30 GMT
History actually teaches us nothing. Otherwise we would never try any thing new. As I have a history degree I am obliged to disagree with you! Actually, scarcely anything is new and most things have been tried before. It is lack of knowledge of the past that dooms us to keep making the same mistakes. In this particular case all I was referencing is that independent MPs who have split from the main parties don't tend to last long - that's just a fact rather than opinion. I could list all the examples but that would be boring. (See Change UK for a recent example). Hehe. OK, scratch the last bit. But history does not of itself have immutable laws, it cannot explain or teach anything. This can only be done with careful scrutiny and analysis. Unless you can explain why past splits didn't worked, you cannot be sure this will always be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 12:28:30 GMT
wb61 I know that, however the appearance of leniency would have been avoided if the judge had used their discretion to impose an indeterminate sentence with a 12 year minimum term. I think we might be boring others by now. Shall we leave it at that. Indeterminate sentences are no longer legal. They were abolished in 2012. But some people who were given an indeterminate sentence before 2012 are still in prison despite having served many times their minimum tariff. www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/03/indefinite-sentences-the-greatest-single-stain-on-justice-systemDespite the use of the sentencing power being scrapped in 2012, more than 3,200 prisoners remain locked up under the regime, including those who have been recalled to prison, prompting critics to brand it the “never-ending sentence”.
IPPs were designed to detain indefinitely serious offenders who were perceived to be a risk to the public. The government expected about 900 people to be jailed under IPPs; it peaked at more than 8,000. They were used far more widely than intended and issued to offenders who committed low-level crimes. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 12:40:51 GMT
moby I meant a life sentence, the period you serve is either whole of life or such period determined by the minimum term and release on licence. Given that no one knows how long they will live a life sentence can be nothing other than indeterminate.I I wasn't referring to the system of imprisonment for public protection rightly removed in 2012, however it wasn't retroactive and thousands detained under ipp order are still imprisoned.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 20, 2023 13:07:01 GMT
The best indication that Sunak is going long: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66256991Once we know how much is in the King's Speech we will have an idea how early Sunak thinks he can go; it may also be effectively the next Tory manifesto if it contains a good deal of legislation that cannot be passed before an election. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 20, 2023 13:14:58 GMT
Indeterminate sentences are no longer legal. They were abolished in 2012. But some people who were given an indeterminate sentence before 2012 are still in prison despite having served many times their minimum tariff. www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/03/indefinite-sentences-the-greatest-single-stain-on-justice-systemDespite the use of the sentencing power being scrapped in 2012, more than 3,200 prisoners remain locked up under the regime, including those who have been recalled to prison, prompting critics to brand it the “never-ending sentence”.
IPPs were designed to detain indefinitely serious offenders who were perceived to be a risk to the public. The government expected about 900 people to be jailed under IPPs; it peaked at more than 8,000. They were used far more widely than intended and issued to offenders who committed low-level crimes.I know I used to supervise them. Every IPP is subject to a 12 monthly review of suitability for release after they have served the sentence portion issued by the Judge. Judges loved this sentence because it ensured no-one would be released until their risk assessment deemed it appropriate, (decided in a parole hearing). The problem is many prisoners were unable to provide evidence that they had done sufficient work to lower their risk to justify a recommendation for release; mental health issues; drug use in prison; further offences in prison and the lack of suitable offending behaviour programmes for prisoners to complete all meant many more prisoners remained in custody deemed unsuitable for release. I was supervising about 30 IPP's at the time of my retirement in 2021. Probation is in an impossible position; we were expected to recommend release for prisoners languishing under the IPP 'injustice' while many of these same prisoners were still assessed as very high risk and we had insufficient resources to manage them when released. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Jul 20, 2023 13:22:43 GMT
Rafwan I didn't actually say I entirely backed the 2017 Labour manifesto broadly it was positive compared to the Tory inadequacy . But given that I was a member of the liberal democrats by then and voted liberal democrat that's not entirely surprising. Just that with a less divisive and politically toxic leader given that May didn't really bother to turn up for the election campaign that without Corbyn at the helm Labour might well have won irrespective of the manifesto. Similarly Starmer a far less divisive figure for the electorate is likely to win despite having little fundamentally to offer other than not leading the worst regime in living memory. It's an anti Tory vote while Labour's loss in 2017 was primarily anti Corbyn. OK, yes, what I said was uncalled for. But what you say in your second para does not stack up. May started the 2017 election campaign with around 43% support and a 20 point lead over Labour (the basis on which she called the election) She ended on much the same polling support. So she HAD 'turned up'. But Labour had garnered so much support from elsewhere it came within 3 points of her. Moreover, the uplift in Labour's vote since 2015 was evidently the largest between consecutive elections since 1945. This suggests the precise opposite of 'divisiveness'. The 2017 manifesto brought credible hope of an ending to austerity. The crushing of Corbyn and anything vaguely lefty is now heralding its return. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Jul 20, 2023 13:26:04 GMT
moby I meant a life sentence, the period you serve is either whole of life or such period determined by the minimum term and release on licence. Given that no one knows how long they will live a life sentence can be nothing other than indeterminate.I I wasn't referring to the system of imprisonment for public protection rightly removed in 2012, however it wasn't retroactive and thousands detained under ipp order are still imprisoned. Yes whole life tariffs are extremely rare, I think there are only about 60-70 prisoners subject to that sentence. The rest of the life sentenced prisoners get a tariff decided by the Judge at a further hearing some months after their sentence. Once they serve the tariff period they are assessed for release under the parole review system and are subject to a life licence, which in effect is not necessarily a lifetime because it can be discharged after 10 years.....(used to be five) after a review application by probation to the MOJ. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 20, 2023 13:38:37 GMT
Re-Farage.
There really is a lot of arrant pigs droppings being spouted in the media right now.
The bottom line is that, for this VERY exclusive bank, you need to have a certain amount in cash or assets.
Fall below threshold and you are likelyto be assessed - whoever you are...
"Tally ho, what do you make of Tim? He's gone below the line here"
"Oh, Tim is a decent chap...and he's the sort of chap the chaps trust"
...type thing.
Yes, it is entirely posible, likely I would say that, when Fartage fel below threshold, he would have been subjected to the second, possibly informal part.
While his political views may have played a part, it's more about "is he one of us?"...and the verdict on the conman came back a resounding "no".
Then, he was readily and instantly offered a bank account with sister company, NatWest.
All this blethering on about "everyone needs a bank acount", those with that line have been utterly silent when it comes to homeless people needing a bank account to be able to access social security and help them get off the streets, or those who don't have the correct ID (try opening a bank account with a birth certificate and see how far it gets you).
But, Fartage being readily offered an alternative account and it's the end of civilisation as we know it.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 20, 2023 14:15:40 GMT
Tory dirty tricks in the by-elections...shocked I tell you
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 14:17:53 GMT
@mark The reason why people bank with private banks like Coutts is the ad ons, primarily the tax avoidance advice about how to place funds in British controlled tax havens. The more services and more money you have the more money Coutts makes. It's why a billionaire oligarch that might be a source of reputational damage is worth the thousands of pounds in due diligence that the bank is obliged to fork out Fryarge is simply not worth the bother having a high profile Putin supporting cockwomble with not by Coutts standards much money isn't worth the effort. They make thousands of these commercial decisions every year. Oddly enough as a European union citizen he would be guaranteed the right to have a bank account of some sort as a brexitanian he doesnt. Break out the nano violin! Attachment Deleted |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 14:21:53 GMT
RafwanThe 2017 manifesto brought credible hope of an ending to austerity. The crushing of Corbyn and anything vaguely lefty is now heralding its return. No offence but Corbyn did that to himself in 2019
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,731
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 20, 2023 14:23:48 GMT
I think this is spot on @adambienkov 'The amount of coverage and political capital being spent on Nigel Farage being asked to move his bank account from Coutts to Natwest, tells you everything you need to know about the insane priorities of British politics and media' It’s currently the top half-dozen headlines over at one newspaper… |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2023 14:24:13 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 20, 2023 14:26:50 GMT
I think this is spot on @adambienkov 'The amount of coverage and political capital being spent on Nigel Farage being asked to move his bank account from Coutts to Natwest, tells you everything you need to know about the insane priorities of British politics and media' It’s currently the top half-dozen headlines over at one newspaper… zzz ZZZ If folks push the clickbait stories (either in 'outrage' or 'agreement') then the clickbait outlets will keep focusing on clickbait stories. If it's a boring non-story then best to simply ignore it IMO and then perhaps the clickbait outlets will focus on more interesting news. |
|
