The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[bickster]

Just now, peterms said:

Can anybody look at these figures and genuinely see them as anything other than a bung?

 

MPs shouldn't be allowed any other income apart from their MPs salary.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

MPs shouldn't be allowed any other income apart from their MPs salary.

There's an argument for some limited payment for things which don't interfere with their role or create conflicts of interest.

But what would anyone really employ Davis to do?  I wouldn't trust him to mow a lawn.

And what could he possibly do that would be worth £60k?  Fly to Mars unaided?

 

[bickster]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

But what would anyone really employ Davis to do?  I wouldn't trust him to mow a lawn.

He has much experience of digging his own hole

[Xann]

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

But what would anyone really employ Davis to do?

Piss boy?

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

And what could he possibly do that would be worth £60k?

Shark bait?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Shark bait? 

Hmmm.  (Strokes chin)

[peterms]

 

[peterms]

[NurembergVillan]

Can we be certain David Davis has eyes?

[HanoiVillan]

19 hours ago, blandy said:

Do you think LDs would do a coalition again HV? (I suspect not). Maybe some sort of arrangement, but I have my doubts. I suppose if they did they might be able to stop some of Corbyn's more brainless ideas being implemented. ANd that might be less bad than the effing tories getting in again, which seems, in these bonkers times, the least unlikely outcome of a GE if held soonish.

Sorry for the late reply. 

In the specific circumstances we're talking about (where there is an election, Labour emerge as the largest party or equal with the Tories, and the LDs hold enough MPs to form a working majority) then I agree that the LDs would almost certainly not join a coalition. In addition to the traumatic experience of 2015, it's difficult to see what benefit they would get from formally joining a government which might take some very unpopular Brexit decisions, and could be very short-lived. 

What I would imagine would happen in that scenario, is that there would be a loose confidence-and-supply arrangement where the LDs agree to vote for a budget and any Brexit legislation, in return for big concessions. The way to marry Labour's stated Brexit goal (a Labour WA with a customs union, removing red lines on the European Court etc) and the LDs stated goal (a second referendum) would be for Corbyn to apply for an extension* to article 50, and assuming that it was granted, negotiate a new WA and PD. Then it would be put to a referendum. Whether the question was 'Corbyn's Deal - Yes or No?' or 'Corbyn's Deal or Remain?' would be the biggest bunfight. 

*not revocation - Labour would be accused of 'cancelling Brexit' and the LDs wouldn't want to give Corbyn that much control of the timetable. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

the LDs stated goal (a second referendum)

Thanks for answering. On the bit quoted, isn't their stated goal "remain"?  Personally i can't see your scenario for multiple reasons including it's not going to happen before the end of March, so either we'll have left already, or a cancellation of A50 by the UK or extension will have been agreed to by the EU. Neither seem likely, yet. But it's all hypothetical anyway and it's not going to happen.

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Thanks for answering. On the bit quoted, isn't their stated goal "remain"?  Personally i can't see your scenario for multiple reasons including it's not going to happen before the end of March, so either we'll have left already, or a cancellation of A50 by the UK or extension will have been agreed to by the EU. Neither seem likely, yet. But it's all hypothetical anyway and it's not going to happen.

Lib Dem's: 'The Liberal Democrats want to give the people the final say on the Brexit deal. If it's not the right deal for Britain's future, then you should be able to reject it and choose to remain in the European Union. Back our campaign for an Exit from Brexit today.' (https://www.libdems.org.uk/brexit)

Scenario: Yes, I agree it's quite unlikely, and getting less likely by the day. I think she would be needing to put the necessary for an election in motion sometime in the next few days, if it is to happen, and talk seems to have died down over the weekend. 

[bickster]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Scenario: Yes, I agree it's quite unlikely, and getting less likely by the day. I think she would be needing to put the necessary for an election in motion sometime in the next few days, if it is to happen, and talk seems to have died down over the weekend. 

Doubt there'll be one

Quote

But internal Conservative polling suggests the party could lose its grip on power if there was a national vote now - with Labour instead best placed to head up a 'rainbow coalition' with the SNP and Lib Dems.

Sorry it's the Daily Heil

[chrisp65]

We're dealing with Ms T May here, she will simply keep running down that clock getting the margin of defeat down from 200 to 100 to 50 to 30 to 7 to 3 to 1....

If she has a choice between handing the decision to someone else, or staying in 'power' for one more hour but we all die in a fireball, then there's a fireball death to look forward to.

Taking power from her is the only way there's any space for any other option than her deal / no deal roulette. 

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Quote

to head up a 'rainbow coalition' with the SNP and Lib Dems.

 

Hang on, red and two shades of yellow is the worst 'rainbow' ever! They need to come up with something more fitting.

How about The...

Coalition?

[peterms]

Tory employment policy.  An hour a week counts as employment.

 

[Xann]

Quote

 

UK taxpayers to spend at least £24bn cleaning up after oil companies in the North Sea

The full cost to the public purse of decommissioning offshore oil rigs built in the 1970s may not be known until the 2060s, warns auditor.

The National Audit Office (NAO) will publish a report today which highlights the “highly uncertain” cost to the taxpayer of decommissioning the 320 rigs and other installations extracting oil and gas from the UK’s North Sea oilfields.

Taxpayers are liable for the costs of decommissioning in the North Sea through significant tax reliefs granted to oil companies by HMRC, which allows operators to deduct up to 75 per cent of their spending on decommissioning from their tax. This can include reclaiming corporation tax paid since 2002. The government is also liable for the total cost of decommissioning oil rigs owned by operators that go bankrupt, or lack the funds to decommission them themselves.

The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) told the NAO that the total cost of decommissioning the North Sea’s oil and gas infrastructure could be up to £77bn. HMRC’s current estimate of the cost to the public through tax relief is £24bn, including £12.9bn in repayments of taxes previously collected. However, the NAO found that figure was “subject to significant uncertainty”, because some operators’ decommissioning costs could increase by as much as 100 per cent and other factors, such as oil prices, decommissioning costs and exchange rates, could vary significantly. The NAO notes that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) views the risk that the government may itself have to take on the costs of decommissioning as “an unquantifiable remote contingent liability”, and that the potential cost of bailing out operators that fail “cannot be forecast reliably.” However, the report says that the Treasury has already committed £344m of support to one operator "because it was meeting a partner operator’s share of decommissioning costs".

Low oil prices in the year 2016-17 reduced oil companies’ tax revenues to the extent that, after decommissioning relief was taken into account, HMRC recouped no tax whatsoever from the oil and gas industry, and actually lost £290m to operators in repaid taxes.   

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas told Spotlight: "Even as climate breakdown accelerates, fossil fuel corporations continue to make billions in profit every year. Handing the clean-up bill to the taxpayer is a twist of the knife from an industry that has spent decades casting doubt on climate science and delaying crucial action on the greatest threat we face.

"Just days after a study showed the UK spends more on fossil fuel subsidies than any other country in Europe, this is even more evidence that our government has got its priorities all wrong. Ministers must stand up to these reckless corporations and force them to clean up their own mess."

 

New Statesman

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 23/01/2019 at 19:59, bickster said:

He has much experience of digging his own hole

JCB now,  let's go for "Grave".

It will be th easiest grave he has ever dug the word removed.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 24/01/2019 at 16:08, chrisp65 said:

We're dealing with Ms T May here.

She going full on Leningrad/Titanic I think,  it's a tactic I suppose. Mrs T would be so proud.

"We will all dance with her"was the cry,  lets all dance with Captain May as we sink, right until the last moment on the bow of the good ship "Glad to Clad".  The lights flicker and then finally go out go out,  & those people without dance restricting illness's such as your bog standard malnutrition or rickets look on with delight from their wheelchairs.  "Strong and Stable" they shouted and splutterd as the cold and dark April 2019 came into view and enveloped them in .........

[snowychap]

Half of magistrates courts in England and Wales closed since 2010

Quote

More than half of all magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010, forcing defendants, witnesses, police, lawyers and justices of the peace to travel sometimes more than 50 miles to access local justice.

The full scale of the closures is revealed in data published by the Guardian and the House of Commons library. Since the coalition government came to power in 2010, 162 of the 323 magistrates courts in England and Wales have shut – a loss of 50.2% of the estate. The latest was Maidenhead magistrates court in the prime minister’s constituency. Most have been sold.

The controversial Ministry of Justice (MOJ) efficiency exercise is directly tied to the need to generate funds for a £1.2bn digital modernisation programme, which came under the spotlight following a meltdown of court computer systems this week.

As large gaps open up in the courts network in Wales, East Anglia and the North of England, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed it is considering whether to pay for taxis to ferry defendants and witnesses from the most remote parts of the country to hearings.

The distance model developed by HMCTS requires that 95% of the population should be able to travel to court from their homes by public transport leaving at 7.30am and arriving by 9.30am. It also specifies that 98% of the population should be able to reach court by 10.30am, which implies a three-hour journey to court and a further three hours back – a total of six hours travelling on a court attendance day.

Concern about the shutdowns is rising up the political agenda. The Commons’ justice select committee has launched an inquiry into HMCTS’s reforms. Among questions it is addressing are the impact of closures, reductions in staffing and how far online systems and video hearings can be “a sufficient substitute for access to court and tribunal buildings”.

Including crown courts, county courts and tribunals, since 2010 more than 250 hearing centres have ceased operating. So far £223m has been raised by sales. Treasury funding for the courts digital programme stipulates that a third must be raised by selling courthouses.

HMCTS and the MoJ justify the closures on the grounds that crime rates have fallen and large numbers of courthouses are operating at less than 40% capacity. The agency is developing justice websites and remote video screens, which, it is argued, will mean fewer journeys to court.

Critics fear savings will only be achieved by displacing costs on to other agencies. The MoJ has declined to give a commitment about halting closures: six more magistrates courts are scheduled to shut this year.

A study by Dr Olumide Adisa of the University of Suffolk found that local court closures have led to an increase in the number failing to attend hearings.

The MoJ disputes such figures, saying the rate of defendant non-appearances did not change at the time most closures were enforced, although it concedes figures rose last year.

Sue James, a solicitor at Hammersmith law centre in west London, suspects a similar problem is emerging among claimants fighting repossession orders, leading to more evictions. Housing work in London has been transferred to Clerkenwell county court. She believes “people are not turning up” at more distant and unfamiliar courts.

A row erupted last year over a case raised by a Telford solicitor, John McMillan, of a defendant from Shropshire who had to attend a remand hearing in Kidderminster and make a 53-mile journey back home via Birmingham. McMillan says the man missed the last bus in Shrewsbury and ending up walking home in the dark long after midnight. The MoJ does not accept the details, maintaining that the man could have left Kidderminster earlier.

The justice minister, Lucy Frazer, said: “The closure of any court is not taken lightly – it only happens following full public consultation and when communities have reasonable access to alternative courts.

“We are reinvesting every penny raised from selling these underused buildings into modernising the justice system to provide swifter and easier access to justice for all.” The MoJ is consulting on guidelines for future closures.

John Bache JP, the national chair of the Magistrates Association, said: “Justice should, wherever possible, be administered locally and, with half of all magistrates courts having closed since 2010, many courts are already worryingly remote from the communities that they serve.

“A more dispersed court estate will affect the retention and recruitment of magistrates, as some will have to step down if their local court closes and people will be less likely to apply in the first place if the nearest court is not in their immediate area. Longer travel distances for magistrates will also increase the cost of meeting their travel expenses.”

Penelope Gibbs, the director of Transform Justice and a former magistrate who monitors the service, said: “Courts are being closed without really thinking through the consequences. Vulnerable defendants and witnesses cannot be expected to travel several hours to attend court and to spend significant sums on doing so. Already many do not turn up for their own court hearing.”

Christina Blacklaws, the president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said: “People across England and Wales are losing access to their local courts and having to travel sometimes for several hours on public transport to alternative sites – assuming that such public transport even exists.

“In addition, police and prison delivery services may suffer increased costs, which will ultimately fall on the taxpayer. There is some evidence of defendants increasingly failing to turn up for criminal hearings, resulting in court time being wasted and witnesses being inconvenienced, as well as cost to the public purse.”

Examples of long journeys to court

• Residents of Staylittle in Wales have a 1 hour and 50 minute car journey (74 miles) to Caernarfon criminal justice centre, the designated “receiving site” for Dolgellau magistrates court, which closed in 2017-18.

• People living in Kielder in Northumberland were previously served by Tynedale magistrates court in Hexham, 34 miles away. They now have to travel 52 miles to Newcastle upon Tyne magistrates court, which according to Google takes 2 hours and 53 minutes by public transport. Services do not run daily.

• In the past, those living in Mildenhall in East Anglia could reach Thetford magistrates court within 18 minutes by car or 40 minutes by bus at certain times of the day. But since it closed in 2013-14 the designated receiving court is Norwich magistrate’s court, a 55-minute drive or an extra hour by public transport, although it can take longer depending on the time of day.

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by snowychap

[bickster]