Politics thread!

[scorch]

News articles should be obliged to cite verifiable sources.

 

I like verifiable sources.

[Tinkerton]

Sorry for breaking the quotes, but quadruple posting is definitely not on.

 

While I think this was a good idea, I'm half minded to close this thread at 10pm tomorrow when the polls close, as that'll be the end of it (for this time).

 

Thoughts?

[DarkLite]

Sorry for breaking the quotes, but quadruple posting is definitely not on.

 

While I think this was a good idea, I'm half minded to close this thread at 10pm tomorrow when the polls close, as that'll be the end of it (for this time).

 

Thoughts?

 

Sorry about that, but I tried posting it before as a single post and the forum code exploded.

[Lone_Bullet]

I found this thread quite the timebomb. I'm all for a temporary closure, reopening it by demand.

 

These things get poisonous real fast.

Though this forum is quiye civilised

 

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

[DarkLite]

I understand that politics is one of those things that people get worked up about, but in all honesty I think the discussion has been pretty civilised so far, with only one person flinging insults and accusations.

Personally I'm not for closing the thread without good reason - civil discussion is an important part of society and should be encouraged.

[Skarclaw]

i dont see the issue... politics is gonna get heated... i reckon a free-for-all confined to this thread. no rules

[Tinkerton]

Fair enough.

 

The public has spoken.

 

Thread remains open but please avoid insulting people.

[DarkLite]

So after the results have come in (Labour in Kensington, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat) it's going to be a Tory-DUP coalition government.

A bunch of fundamentalist, homophobic, racist misogynists forming a coalition with the DUP.

 

Terrible stuff really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Tongue planted firmly in cheek

[scorch]

To quote Liam Young:

 

To be fair Theresa May warned of coalition of chaos propped up by extremist terrorist sympathisers. She just didn't say she'd be leading it.

 

https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/873146824059760642

[DarkLite]

[Xaccers]

<cut to save our eyes>

 

So you acknowledge that Virgin Care weren't brought in by the Tory government, but by the CCG in a tendering process which the NHS wasn't excluded from entering.

 

Quoting your Grauniad article re privatising the NHS:

Downing Street tried to distance itself from Britnell. A No 10 spokesman said: "We will never privatise the NHS. We remain committed to the principle of an NHS funded from general taxation and based on need not ability to pay. Mark Britnell is not the prime minister's health adviser. We are listening to the views of experts, patients and staff on how to improve our plans to strengthen the NHS."

 

The Independent being anything but, rolling out the hold chestnut "Red Cross NHS Humanitarian Crisis" which makes it sound like the Red Cross are picking up accident victims, rushing them to A&E, doing nurses jobs on the wards etc, when they are.... a taxi service getting patients home.

http://blogs.redcross.org.uk/health/2015/01/red-cross-helps-nhs/

"Our volunteers take patients home and check they have what they need, from food in the fridge to making sure the heating is on."

Commendable no doubt, and speeding up the normal discharge process a bit, but it's hardly a humanitarian crisis that someone has to spend a couple more hours in a hospital bed.

 

As discussed earlier, NHS Property's role is to manage and maintain the NHS estate, selling off buildings and land which is unoccupied and most likely still paying tax on, with the money released having to be pumped back into the NHS property for improvements and maintenance, with a matching amount from government. See the discussion on "you've got a £400 hole in your roof and a £400 car you don't ever use or need on the drive, doesn't it make more sense to sell the car to fix the roof rather than take out a loan?"

Taking the historic Essex County Hospital in Colchester (built in 1820 so really fit for modern uses) site as an example, it's services have been in the process of moving to the newer Colchester General Hospital (built in 1984). The older hospital has been expecting to close for the past 20 years according to Unison, who also said that the closure would benefit patients and staff. Yes, that's Unison saying the closure is a good thing. 

"The new £25m radiotherapy centre at Colchester General Hospital is due to start treating patients next month.

Tracey Lambert, regional head of health for Unison, said the government had asked hospitals to look at older buildings to see if any were "not fit for purpose".

Essex County Hospital had been earmarked for closure for 20 years and this plan "would benefit patients and staff", she said.

"No jobs will be lost as staff will transfer to Colchester General Hospital or to centres in the community," she said.

"The trust will also get revenue from the sale of the site," she said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-26925827

 

Bloke deemed fit to work has heart attack. No evidence the heart attack was brought on by work.

Again in the articles and the report there is nothing to suggest a causal link between being assessed fit for work and dropping dead.

Lets say I get diagnosed with terminal cancer. Should I be signed off work and put on ESA straight away? A month down the line? 6 months? Or should I be put on ESA when I fit the criteria?

 

60% of appeals fail showing the assessment was correct. So for every 74 out of 100, 44 (and a bit - ew) are actually fit for work, meaning 70 out of 100 are indeed fit for work. Now, you cannot extrapolate that appeal success rate to the remaining 26. Why? Because that would assume no one thought that actually they were fit for work, but lets do it anyway, so you've got everyone appealing, and still 60% are assessed correctly.

 

No one at the DWP is saying someone needing both hips replaced should get a job as a policeman patrolling the streets, or stacking shelves. There are plenty of jobs available where you sit down and don't have to lift anything heavy, paying far more than JSA/ESA, and Yeovil is only 9 miles from Crewkerne. Take the No. 40 bus (free with William's bus pass).

 

The point regarding my ex was why should people who can afford a car themselves have a free one given to them?

No longer being eligible for something doesn't mean it's been confiscated from you! Seriously you are clutching at straws.

 

I never said all benefit claimants are frauds so please do not put words in my mouth. In fact nothing in what I said went anywhere near the subject of fraud.

I stated that a single mum of two believed she was entitled to a 3 bedroom house and was complaining that her two infants had to share a bedroom in a 2 bedroom house. Why should anyone have the sense of entitlement of such a thing? The rest of us with jobs have to work and save to either rent or buy a place to live.

 

£3.5 billion fraud in the benefits system, and you think it shouldn't be tackled?

Incidentally, the article you linked to regarding the UK annual fraud states the £193 billion is all fraud in the UK, not public sector fraud.  

As you may have heard regarding Jimmy Carr, HMRC are tackling tax fraud.

 

I'm sorry but a 90 minute commute each way? Welcome to the real world.

Were you factoring in that travel time is unpaid, as is lunch, when working out your hourly rate? Knowing that you would be sanctioned if you didn't take it, didn't you consider doing it and

Didn't pay for your travel? Shocking! Made you pay for your own lunch? Astonishing!

Good grief I can tell you're a SEN teacher

Go to the library and find a book on student cooking, or cooking during the war years, or any book on cooking on a budget. Learn to batch cook. I have healthy, delicious, nutritious meals which cost less than 50p because we've bought wisely.

You know with UC you can still get some even though you work?

Oh no, there's a job but it's outside my sector! Heaven forbid! I take it then your own searches for jobs were only for SEN roles? I'm scared to ask, you did bother searching for jobs yourself right, you didn't expect the Job Centre to do it all for you, did you? McDonalds etc not recruiting?

Also, weren't you complaining that the reason why you couldn't get anything was because your previous employer wouldn't acknowledge you were no longer employed by them?

 

Giving corporations tax relief translates into jobs and investment which results in an increase in tax returns and a reduction in reliance on state benefits. So it's giving a bit to get back more.

 

No one is talking about scrapping the HRA, but instead re-writing it to match the needs and wants of the nation.

For instance ECHR judges are able to legislate from the bench, for instance it is UK law that prisoners are unable to vote. UK judges agreed that was in line with UK law and not in conflict with the HRA. The ECHR is requiring new legislation in the UK so prisoners are able to vote.

The government has a responsibility to protect the British public. By using the ECHR to try and thwart the return of Abu Qatada to his native Jordan, it put the British public at risk. Frankly if you seek asylum in Britain and then incite people to attack and kill the British and there is an extradition order back to your native country, you should have thought about that before you did anything against Britain, and be handed over as soon as possible irrespective of what is likely to happen to you.

I know the history of the ECHR, especially Churchill's involvement and it's original purpose, which was not for Britain to be subject to it, we didn't need it, but to give Europeans the benefits of British rights so that never again would the holocaust happen. It was not meant to allow frivolous claims take up court time, nor for criminals to try and evade justice.

Now, I'm probably older than you, and I don't recall the last tyrannical government we had before 1998, can you?

Again with the lies about the Tories. Theresa May actually said "we'll change the laws so we can do it"

It's funny because this came up on Facebook, and I said that I bet the left will claim she said she will tear up the HRA, and look, you did! Ha!

https://youtu.be/Ts7YTReLXJc

 

Ex-pats who've lived outside of the UK for 15 years aren't allowed to vote in general elections either.

So again, I ask, when was the last time anyone from the EU guaranteed the rights of the Brits living in EU member states?

If the answer is never, then again I ask why should EU citizens be given more rights than not just any other foreign group but our own citizens abroad?

 

 

DEFICIT - Difference between government spending and tax receipts.

In 2009/10, the last year of Labour it was £158.3bn, in 2016/17 it's £53.9bn

08/98  101.5bn

09/10  158.3bn

10/11  143.5bn

11/12  124.1bn

12/13  126.7bn

13/14  104.1bn

14/15    94.5bn

15/16    76.6bn

16/17    53.9bn

 

So since coming to power, the deficit is 1/3 of what is was and we were forecast to hit a surplus.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/aprtojune2016

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

 

Now, assuming you mean debt. Well it's a good job I've just explained the deficit, because now you can see why debt has increased, and in case you can't, I'll give you a clue: If your income drops below your outgoings, you need to borrow money to meet those outgoings. Got that? Good.

Now, the government issues loans, which don't appear as government spending because the money hasn't been spent, it's been loaned. This is why the debt goes up by more than the deficit, and also why part of the debt will be paid back not by the government but by who they lent money to.

So, you have the economy bubbling along under Gordon Brown, each year claiming inflated GDP growth forecasts to justify borrowing more and more after squandering the surplus the Major government gave him, encouraging everyone to borrow to drive the economy (we're a consumer economy really, not export or service), restricting house building and encouraging mortgages of 6x+ salary with no questions asked so people view houses as investments not homes. People look at their equity and are happy thinking they're safe with all that free money tied up in their bricks, except it's a sham. The banks stop lending money, people realise that they can't live the same lifestyle on their salary, debt consolidation is no longer an option, the telephone lines are flooded with IVA companies, bankrupts go through the roof. More importantly, tax receipts plummet. The government dawdles, Virgin Money withdraws it's offer to buy Northern Rock (who had been giving out 125% mortgages!) leaving the tax payer to bail them out. The deficit shoots up to £101.5bn, the government under Brown, having no rainy day fund, borrow and borrow and borrow, whilst trying to spend their way out of trouble, but the government isn't the economy, all those non-jobs in the civil service worry about their future and stop spending along with the rest of the population (an exaggeration to demonstrate the point), Suddenly the truth hits, Labour weren't growing the economy, the banks were, with loans and credit cards. An extra 10,000 coppers made great headlines, but they're costly even if they are doing the work cheaper civilian staff did rather than making the streets safer. The baby boomers are hitting retirement age, pensions are going up, unemployment is going up, debt has to go up to pay. Cue the coalition. Who realised businesses needed support to grow properly, consumer confidence had to be regained, cuts had to be made. The first year was hard, government spending is a huge tanker that is difficult to turn around, redundancies cost a lot, but they're a one off. Borrowing had to increase to compensate for lost tax revenue until the economy started to recover and spending was brought under control. So debt has increased, but at a much lower rate than if the deficit hadn't been slashed, and once there is a surplus that debt can be reduced. If you increase business finances through lower taxation, you increase their budgets for more staff which leads to lower unemployment (as we've seen) and more consumer confidence which stimulates the economy and increases GDP/tax receipts (as we've seen). A business wanting to expand means more employment and therefore more tax received, so if they can be allowed to keep some of their profits to expand by providing tax relief then the resultant tax return is usually much greater. You only get taxed on profits, and you only get tax relief on the bit that would be taxed. Ever claimed expenses? Tax relief. I drive as part of my job, should I pay for the fuel used out of my wages? No of course not.

 

For apprenticeships if an employer has a payroll over £3million (about 2%), then 0.5% goes into their online digital apprenticeship service account (there's a £15,000 allowance), with a 10% top up from the government. They must be used by the company for apprenticeships within 18 months, otherwise the government will claim the money and use it to help fund apprentice schemes with smaller companies.

Businesses pay 1/3 of the cost of the training course.

We're taking on a 16 year old this summer to give him on site experience of looking after a school's IT, whilst paying him £200 a month. An A Level student has got himself on a cyber security apprenticeship with Santander at degree level paying £24K a year.

Never in my 40 years do I recall such effort to get young people the skills and qualifications they need and business needs.

 

Why should someone have to sell their home just because it's gone up in value?

Average house price in London is £471,742

Many low cost areas are now trendy, so there's lots of elderly who are living in £ million houses through no fault of their own, and you'd have them sell up? For shame.

 

Linking to a site which refers to it as the snoopers charter is on a par with saying Theresa May said she wants to tear up the HRA.

Try the actual act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/section/56/enacted

Disclosures of lawfully intercepted communications

 

2(1)Section 56(1)(a) does not prohibit the disclosure of any content of a communication, or any secondary data obtained from a communication, if the interception of that communication was lawful by virtue of any of the following provisions—

 

(a)sections 6(1)© and 44 to 52;

 

(sections 1(5)©, 3 and 4 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;

 

©section 1(2)( and (3) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

 

(2)Where any disclosure is proposed to be, or has been, made on the grounds that it is authorised by sub-paragraph (1), section 56(1) does not prohibit the doing of anything in, or for the purposes of, so much of any proceedings as relates to the question whether that disclosure is or was so authorised.

 

Also, and you'll notice the site you quoted doesn't itself give a quote to back up it's claim, but section 56 does not create a legal obligation to lie. You'd have thought if it did, your site would have been able to quote the line.

 

Funny how the debate on the sale or rather the lease of the forests starts off by stating "up to" and only in England. That would be "up to" around 250,000 ha, not 860,000 ha.

I can't find any record of them selling 15% of England's forests like you've claimed.

Now, up in Scotland, the SNP have been secretly selling their forests off since 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8307058/28-million-profit-selling-Scotlands-public-forests.html

 

Maria Gatland who was involved in setting up a pirate radio station for the pIRA just as the troubles started, had an affair with the leader of the Republican movement, then when the troubles really kicked off after being with the pIRA for a year, horrified by the slaughter caused, she escaped with the help of Special Branch. When it became public who she was, she was suspended by the Tories and resigned as a councillor.

 

Liam Fox who did nothing wrong, as demonstrated by Mr Boulter settling out of court regarding a meeting that may have been orchestrated by Werritty and was shown to have been a chance meeting as far as Fox was concerned. He still resigned due to the misjudgement of having a friend who turned out to be untrustworthy.

 

Not quite the same as saying the IDF are harvesting organs then getting a peerage.

[Habakure]

So the debt isn't 1.56 trillion, at an interest of 43 billion?.

 

Edit:- also, what's a non-job (that you said exists in the civil service)?

[Xaccers]

So the debt isn't 1.56 trillion, at an interest of 43 billion?.

 

Edit:- also, what's a non-job (that you said exists in the civil service)?

 

No, debt is about £1.7-1.8tn with interest payments of over £43bn because we were in no state to cope with the recession. It hit us hard, much harder than many other Western countries. So Labour tried to borrow their way out of it which pushed the deficit up to £156bn, meaning more money had to be borrowed every year to make ends meet.

To put it simply, think of the debt as a massive overdraft with no limit. You've been borrowing money and buying things you really can't afford by convincing yourself you'll get more overtime and bonuses than you actually ended up getting. Then work cuts your hours massively so you pay falls dramatically (Dun! Dun! DAAAAH!), so to pay your bills you use your overdraft, but you're tied into Sky TV, broadband and a Vodafone contract for the next year, there's also your gym membership contract, car insurance, food, council tax etc. So you cut down on some of your expenses, but you can't cut down on all of them at once because you're tied in to many.

The next year your hours go up a little bit, but your pay still doesn't cover your bills despite cancelling your PornHub subscription, so you extend your overdraft a bit more and make a few more cuts to your spending. Eventually you manage to increase your hours and income by nearly enough to make ends meet, maybe in a year or two you'll be able to start paying the overdraft off. You hear at work that in a couple of years there's going to be a reorganisation, you may do better out of it, you may do worse, it depends how well you can negotiate, so being in a position where your income more than covers your outgoings and you're starting to pay off the overdraft would be great, but instead you decide to replace your car. It's a bit old, it needs some work doing on it and you'll be able to afford that in a few years, but if you borrow a load more money you can have a slightly better car, and you kid yourself that the running costs are lower than they'll actually be and you're sure you'll be able to get more overtime from work. Then the re-organisation takes place, you get your figures wrong, your income drops as your businesses clients move to where they'll pay less, your overdraft which you've already increased has to increase even more in order to keep your wife and kids in the lifestyle you've promised. Each year you borrow more, the interest piles up, your bank assesses you and as your income has dropped with less chance of it increasing in the foreseeable future, your credit rating drops and the interest you pay goes up meaning even more borrowing is needed. If only you'd waited to be financially stronger before buying a new car.

 

Having spent several years working in the civil service some of the non-jobs I witnessed was three women paid £26K each to receive a fax, photocopy it, put the photocopy into a file, fax a copy to a delivery person within the organisation, have the delivery person call to say something due for delivery has arrived, and then tell that delivery person to deliver it. There was also an office manager without an office to manage being paid £28K to play solitaire all day. This is on top of spending waste such as buying 40 new computers for 20 members of staff, to replace their current computers which were 2 years old. 20 external laptop CD players bought for a department with no laptops, basically for the staff as tax payer funded presents.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hr/tories-unearth-132m-of-non-jobs-in-civil-service/

"The Conservatives have accused the government of running a “glorified job creation scheme” after it emerged 4,634 civil servants were being paid full salaries despite having no official role.

The Tories estimated a total of £132m a year was being spent on these ‘non-jobs’ across the Civil Service, with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) the worst offender – employing 2,874 people, known as ‘pre-surplus staff’."

[Habakure]

Buying a new car, does that represent something the government has done that hurts the debt we have? As I'm not sure what the car represents (it's hinted that it represents spending on something you didn't need). . .

[icolater]

Capitalism!!!

[Xaccers]

Buying a new car, does that represent something the government has done that hurts the debt we have? As I'm not sure what the car represents (it's hinted that it represents spending on something you didn't need). . .

 

It represents government spending which is beneficial; a new car can save on maintenance costs for instance, and it's new, although it may cost more to run than you expect.

If you know you're heading for what could be troubling financial times in 2 years, and you've got a huge overdraft, is it more sensible to pay a lower amount to keep your current car going until you're in a more stable economic situation, or should you go ahead and spend £25K on a new car without knowing if you'll have the future income to pay for it?

 

 

Capitalism!!!

..is an excellent way to pay for socialist policies such as the NHS and welfare.

Capitalism increases wealth, and some can be diverted to help those in need. The more wealth created, the more can be diverted. We can have a fully funded NHS, education and social care, we just need to stimulate the economy enough to afford it.

Had Attlee spent US aid on building the means to fund a welfare state (like Germany and France did) rather than fund a welfare state which was already too expensive for public finances (hence the introduction of prescription charges) then we'd be in a much better position, not just in the UK, but in the world.

[icolater]

Buy a bicycle, better for your life expectancy and cheaper to run. Also you can't get a DUI on a bike. (I don't think)

[Xaccers]

Buy a bicycle, better for your life expectancy and cheaper to run. Also you can't get a DUI on a bike. (I don't think)

You can in the UK, well a fine, not points on your licence. However, if you ride in a dangerous fashion due to being drunk, you can be charged with "furious cycling" and face imprisonment. It's nearly worth it just to have that on your record!

 

All this talk of bicycles reminds me of Norman Tebbit when he said:

"I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot; he got on his bike and looked for work and he kept looking 'til he found it."

[hitmanNo2]

Furious cycling?  Sits on your record nicely next to 'driving under the influence of drum and bass' ha.

[icolater]

Really , I want this on my record, I'll start tomorrow. Mind you I'm just out of jail last week for an outstanding warrant. So might leave it for awhile.

[AliceHKfan]

you can get a DUI on a bicycle in the US.

 

Unrelated: Icolater, behave

[icolater]

I'm on my bestist behaviour

[scorch]

You can in the UK, well a fine, not points on your licence. However, if you ride in a dangerous fashion due to being drunk, you can be charged with "furious cycling" and face imprisonment. It's nearly worth it just to have that on your record!

 

My grandfather was arrested for being drunk in charge of a horse, so that's a thing too.

[Xaccers]

My grandfather was arrested for being drunk in charge of a horse, so that's a thing too.

 

Good point. Not forgetting it's also illegal to be served/bought drinks if you drunk in a pub.

[Habakure]

This^. Though it is pretty hard to explain to a drunk, that because they are drunk, in a bar, they can no longer be served.

 

Also, it's still a hung parliament yes?