Awol Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 18 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Do we know that it is actually the case ? I'm reading LSE saying one thing and the FCO another ... I know that we aren't supposed to believe anything from our government but even so ... if you swapped FCO for Corbyn you'd have people posting saying it was another stich up and the LSE aren't to be believed The LSE is to Brexit what the Cambridge 5 were to MI6' anti-Soviet operations... As an institution it's right up there with the FT and the Economist for its zealously pro-EU views. In all seriousness the two years following the activation of Article 50 will be the most strategically significant endeavour the UK has undertaken post-1945. No one questions the fact that UK nationals will have no visibility of, nor take any role in the formulation and conduct of the EU's negotiating position on Brexit. Why? It's common sense and the risks to information security too high. That the UK Gov is adopting the same rigourous approach is prudent. The Academics may only be offering advice, but it will be based on the Information Requirements they receive from Whitehall. This automatically telegraphs the thought processes and potential strategies that the Government is exploring. Like it or not the EU is about to become our economic competitor. We should be under no illusions about that & act accordingly to protect the UK's own interests - afte all countries don't have eternal friends, only eternal interests. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Quote Maternity units across the country could be closed or downgraded under plans to plug a shortfall in NHS funding projected to reach £22bn by 2020. The proposals would see smaller maternity departments and special-care baby units absorbed into larger hospitals, which could mean journeys of up to 50 miles for mothers in labour. Campaigners from across the country will march on Downing Street tomorrow in protest over the maternity units that are earmarked for potential closure under local NHS five-year sustainability and transformation plans (STPs). Protesters complain that the plans have been drawn up “under the radar”. Times Try closing down tax system exploits instead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) Why would tories care about mothers in Labour? Edited October 11, 2016 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 11, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted October 11, 2016 On 08/10/2016 at 19:09, Awol said: The LSE is to Brexit what the Cambridge 5 were to MI6' anti-Soviet operations... As an institution it's right up there with the FT and the Economist for its zealously pro-EU views. In all seriousness the two years following the activation of Article 50 will be the most strategically significant endeavour the UK has undertaken post-1945. No one questions the fact that UK nationals will have no visibility of, nor take any role in the formulation and conduct of the EU's negotiating position on Brexit. Why? It's common sense and the risks to information security too high. That the UK Gov is adopting the same rigourous approach is prudent. The Academics may only be offering advice, but it will be based on the Information Requirements they receive from Whitehall. This automatically telegraphs the thought processes and potential strategies that the Government is exploring. Like it or not the EU is about to become our economic competitor. We should be under no illusions about that & act accordingly to protect the UK's own interests - afte all countries don't have eternal friends, only eternal interests. There's an alternative point of view, which is that while some of that is fair comment, some is rather less so. The Times (Tory supporting, brexit keen) reported the story, having seen the e mail from the FCO to the LSE. It's true alright. But whether the LSE is or isn't pro EU is completely irrelevant - at least as far as the Gov't is concerned - them being happy to take expert advice from UK nationals there, and all.. You're right on the seriousness and scale of the task. Unlike the EU the UK is very short of negotiators and experts ,as the EU collectively (currently) negotiates trade etc. so the UK has or had no need for large numbers of skilled people in that area. We sure as heck do now, though. Next point is a diversion. No EU nation will have any say or visibility of the UK's formulation or conduct of our negotiating position, and the same applies in reverse. Individual worker's nationality / dual nationality status is not a factor on the EU side, and it shouldn't be something preventing the giving of advice for either party. Re "telegraphing" - sure, potentially. Plenty of explorations of possibilities go along "what if" lines, and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some level of attempted, er, "intelligence gathering" going on both ways - GCHQ and other agencies, perhaps. Academics asked to comment or advise on aspects of Economics being excluded or included based on nationality doesn't seem like the highest risk issue, here. The whole Brexit thing is unfortunately being run by bumbling F-wits more keen on having Blue Passports again, and a Royal Yacht again, than actually using all tools and resources to achieve the best possible outcome, and they don't even have any notion of what they think a good outcome might look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 'The entire market for elderly health care could be at risk', says the news reader on BBC TV news. Obviously, having a 'market' in elderly care is just the sort of sensible middle ground politics the left struggles to understand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 6 hours ago, blandy said: The Times (Tory supporting, brexit keen) reported the story, Cough Rupert Murdoch's Times newspaper backs Remain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 12, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2016 8 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Cough I know their editorial before the vote said remain, I even posted so at the time in this thread. I read it and the Sunday times (supported leave, so Rupert could have it both ways ) at the weekends, as I get them free. Anyway, regardless of that, the times is, as I said, keen on both the tories and on brexit now the decision has been made. Do you disagree? Or disagree with my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, blandy said: There's an alternative point of view, which is that while some of that is fair comment, some is rather less so. The Times (Tory supporting, brexit keen) reported the story, having seen the e mail from the FCO to the LSE. It's true alright. But whether the LSE is or isn't pro EU is completely irrelevant - at least as far as the Gov't is concerned - them being happy to take expert advice from UK nationals there, and all.. You're right on the seriousness and scale of the task. Unlike the EU the UK is very short of negotiators and experts ,as the EU collectively (currently) negotiates trade etc. so the UK has or had no need for large numbers of skilled people in that area. We sure as heck do now, though. Next point is a diversion. No EU nation will have any say or visibility of the UK's formulation or conduct of our negotiating position, and the same applies in reverse. Individual worker's nationality / dual nationality status is not a factor on the EU side, and it shouldn't be something preventing the giving of advice for either party. Re "telegraphing" - sure, potentially. Plenty of explorations of possibilities go along "what if" lines, and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some level of attempted, er, "intelligence gathering" going on both ways - GCHQ and other agencies, perhaps. Academics asked to comment or advise on aspects of Economics being excluded or included based on nationality doesn't seem like the highest risk issue, here. The whole Brexit thing is unfortunately being run by bumbling F-wits more keen on having Blue Passports again, and a Royal Yacht again, than actually using all tools and resources to achieve the best possible outcome, and they don't even have any notion of what they think a good outcome might look like. Fair comment that they will still receive advice as submissions from the LSE, it's not where I'd look for a balanced scholarly view but that's beside the point. The Times nods at its readership through a facade of Euro skepticism, but when it came to the crunch they held the establishment line. It's also fair to say that our civil service institutions have been deliberately hollowed out of expertise over a period of decades, a function of the gradual transfer of competences and functions of national governance to the EU - a major reason for voting to leave (for me, at least). The same is true of the FCO, in part at least a reason for our unfathomable missteps abroad since 2003. Fixing these institutions is all part of the recovery programme Brexit will force the civil service to undertake. I can't object to the 'bumbling ...' description but we go with what we have, the alternatives are equally useless given the broadly poor calibre of people we have in politics. I remember discussing this very issue on here with you pre-referendum & hoping that an Out vote would help to encourage better people into Parliament once it was the place that actually made the big decisions again. We'll have to see how that goes over time. Edit: I do think they have a view of what the basic outcome will look like and it was articulated by many Brexiteers before the vote: Leaving the single market / customs union, doing a free trade deal with the EU, doing further free trade deals with growth markets, remaining a Central European pillar of NATO. The rest will come down to what we can negotiate over and above that. Edited October 12, 2016 by Awol To add 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 29 minutes ago, blandy said: I know their editorial before the vote said remain, I even posted so at the time in this thread. I read it and the Sunday times (supported leave, so Rupert could have it both ways ) at the weekends, as I get them free. Anyway, regardless of that, the times is, as I said, keen on both the tories and on brexit now the decision has been made. Do you disagree? Or disagree with my post? Well I just found it strange that you used the Times being pro Brexit as a reason for their stance , whilst dismissing the LSE as being remain as irrelevant have the Times seen this email tou mention ? This is the Times that saw Hitlers diary after all !! Im not sure I have complete faith in the Brexit team either but equally i haven't written them off when nothing has happened yet ... May seems like she is quite tough in her negotiations , this belief that we are going to roll over and let the EU tickle our bellies is just more baseless remain scaremongering ( see expats a few pages back etc ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Cameron has got himself a new job doing unpaid charity work do those posters suggesting banks and money grabs want some cream with their humble pie ? (ok you can keep this post in the memory bank when he goes all Blair and chases the money 6 months later when no one is looking ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 54 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Cameron has got himself a new job doing unpaid charity work do those posters suggesting banks and money grabs want some cream with their humble pie ? (ok you can keep this post in the memory bank when he goes all Blair and chases the money 6 months later when no one is looking ) working at the local food bank? handing out caviar and champagne to the feckless wasters of society is he? well they got to have something to eat whilst they sit in front of there big screen tv's generations of scrounging has enabled them to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Cameron has got himself a new job doing unpaid charity work He's become chairman of the patrons of one of his pet projects - that's not a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 12, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Well I just found it strange that you used the Times being pro Brexit as a reason for their stance , whilst dismissing the LSE as being remain as irrelevant The differential there is that I am saying the Gov't went to the LSE and so therefore the LSE's (alleged) pro EU outlook was clearly not considered relevant by the Govt, whereas the Times being keen on the tories and (it seems to me) Brexit going ahead, reporting of a leaked FCO e mail which is effectively damaging to the Tories and shows up the folly of their brexit actions and stance (in this instance) just suggests that it is not some made up nonsense by a LSE bod with a grievance on that there twitter. Does that explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 12, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: this belief that we are going to roll over and let the EU tickle our bellies is just more baseless remain scaremongering ( see expats a few pages back etc ) There's an element of "scaremongering" perhaps (other people would call it pessimism about or future, but still..). But much of it comes about because of the vastly different statements and promises and words of the people leading (we're told) the Brexit task. Not just between Davies/Fox/Johnson, but between what each of them says today and what they said yesterday. And they say one thing and May says another thing, or over-rules it. And that's before you get to the differences between them and the other tory MPs. So we had for example re the ex-pats, I think it was May about a month ago saying she couldn't guarantee that EU people over here wouldn't be sent back. Now that obviously, from her words, leads towards a conclusion that "well they might do the same to our Ex-pats, then". So is that scaremongering, or is that something that actually came from the pronouncements of Theresa May and other tories, and brexiters? She's now clarified that actually, no, we won't be hoofing anyone out, which would have been the wise thing to say from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 'Who's Spending Britain's Billions' was on BBC2 last night. Tories opening the gates to private interests that suck public coffers dry, Suits profiting from school closures... What we've come to expect from the Tory pricks. Piss boiling TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 In before "But Labour...". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 didn't want to put this in the 'phunnay' thread, so thought this was the next best, what with Green being a typical tory This has been stuck on the closed BHS in Swansea... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 15 hours ago, chrisp65 said: didn't want to put this in the 'phunnay' thread, so thought this was the next best, what with Green being a typical tory This has been stuck on the closed BHS in Swansea... I don't get the pious obsession with Green having his knighthood revoked. It seems designed to suggest to a gullible public that the honours system has some kind of reputation worth protecting which Green's knighthood somehow threatens. But once you take into account that Mussolini, Ceausescu and Mugabe all had knighthoods, ultimately revoked but very late in the day, it is hard to make the claim that a knighthood is any kind of honour, and more a mere bauble to hand out in the furtherance of international relations and to reward political graft. Lloyd George was caught flogging honours for personal gain in the form of hard cash back in the 1920s. When they hand them out to the proles it is always the establishment co-opting the achievements of the class that it systematically excludes the rest of the time. If we are to honour and admire Benjamin Zephaniah for turning down an OBE, why do we give a damn whether another greedy bugger has one or not? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 Personally, I don't really spend too much time worrying about the honours system. It was the numbers on the plaque more than the 'sir', that did it for me. If I was a 'sir' something or other and I could either keep £500 million I'd stolen, or keep my 'sir' title, I think on weighing up all the pro's and con's I'd probably just about edge towards keeping the £500 million I'd stolen, thanks. Perhaps I'm just common. If the 'pressure' in anyway discredits the honours system, that's a good thing. If the pressure helps get any money back for the working people that have had their pensions stolen, that's a good thing. If the pressure persuades plod to think there might be something oddly similar about the numbers on that plaque, that's a good thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 24, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2016 7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I'd probably just about edge towards keeping the £500 million Yeah, but you're just, like, a total bread-head, man! Seriously, the taking his sirhood away is kind of a distraction really. They knew he was a word removed when they gave him a sir-ship, and they knew he was a word removed when they appointed him to the Gov't as some sort of advisor. And now he's been caught out publicly as an utter scumbag, it's all "ooh take way the naughty man's Ermin robes, we didn't know...." There's an absolute ton of scumbags been given all kinds of "honours" either for cash or for "favours" or in the hope of getting favours, or with the aim of political advantage for whichever party in the Lords. It's absolutely corrupt and rotten and it tarnishes the awards to people who genuinely have done something selfless and outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts