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

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Anyone who 'treasures and values the democratic process' over and above trying to use one's judgement about the actions of those who have been elected by it, i.e. using it's democracy, 'innit to trump (pun necessary) any other cards played, either doesn't really understand the role democracies and democratic elections have played

Hmmm. There's a bit of an unclear aspect to that answer - I'm genuinely interested, not having a go - Specifically, when you mention "valuing the democratic process' over and above trying to use one's judgement" - I'm not clear what might that entail as it applies to my original question - what I mean is, suppose we think Erdogan, or Trump is indeed a humungous nobber. Where does "judgement" about the extent of any actions we might take kick in? i.e. I don't think it's binary ignore completely/trade freely. I think that maybe the politicians consider - "well if we just refuse to talk, deal, etc. with them, they won't change, they'll just go make friends with North Korea, or someone horrible, so we maybe need to have dialogue and take things from there, because if we're having dialogue with these fellow NATO members, and their elected leaders, then why wouldn't we want to see if we can tie them in to some long term trading and wider political relationships - if we sell them a capability in manufacturing, or medicine, or computing or whatever, then over time we will have stronger influence politically to move them away from locking up their press or doing mysogyny or torture or barring refugees or whatever it is that upsets us right now.

And given everyone else also wants to interact commercially with the US and Turkey and wherever, we're kind of letting ourselves down if we don't engage fully with them, aren't we?

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I'm not clear what might that entail as it applies to my original question - what I mean is, suppose we think Erdogan, or Trump is indeed a humungous nobber. Where does "judgement" about the extent of any actions we might take kick in?

It's not just that one may believe someone to be a nobber. I'd suggest that we start exercising 'judgement' from the get go as it seems like a process thing (i.e. something happening continuously) rather than a response to a particular event.

If there's a clear indication that a leader is, say, purging the country of opposition (be that journalists, academics, teachers, anyone in the street that may insult him by saying they'd refuse to sell him tea) or that she is becoming more autocratic or that they're trying to bomb kurdish groups out of existence then a decent policy may be to 'sup with a long spoon' until that leader changes their behaviour.

It isn't, as you say, necessarily binary so, along the whole spectrum of possible involvement, there can be many possibilities such as, for instance, refusing to sell the Saudis the ordnance which they are subsequently using in Yemen or perhaps thinking twice about selling Erdogan loads of fighter planes when he's acting in the way in which he is or contemplating whether it's the most appropriate use of existing UK personel to be trying to sell services to various middle east regimes to make their police services 'more efficient'.

I say the above about countries and regimes whether they are democratically-elected or not. We should look at engaging in an appropriate way with countries whilst taking in to account the actions that they have or may take and which we facilitate by our interactions with them (selling them ordnance/standing shoulder to shoulder). I am not of the opinion that we should either say that a country's government is democratically-elected so whatever they choose to do with our support/flying death machines/a job lot of batons/the advice of service personnel is fine and has no bearing upon us and our actions or that we should say, "Hey, there are bucks to be made here; we can't turn it down otherwise someone else will profit from it" and thus absolve ourselves from all we do under the banner of (economic) necessity.

Edited January 28, 2017 by snowychap
Some poor English in that first sentence.

[Chindie]

We can't have done a deal with a Turkey. We aren't allowed to trade with non-EU countries

[jon_c]

On 27/01/2017 at 21:31, chrisp65 said:

They wish they were as an accomplished politician as Palpatine.

[Davkaus]

We'll be lucky to find a corridor to die in at this rate.

Independent

Quote

 

NHS spending per person will be cut next year, ministers confirm
The funding constraints come despite the unfolding ‘humanitarian crisis’ in the health service

The Government will cut the National Health Service’s budget per person in real terms next year, ministers have admitted in official figures for the first time.

Numbers released by ministers show NHS England will face a sharp reduction of 0.6 per cent in real terms of per head in the financial year 2018-19. 

The numbers corroborate claims by NHS chief Simon Stevens earlier this month that “in 2018-19, real-terms NHS spending per person in England is going to go down”.

That claim was debunked by the cross-party Health Committee in the summer, whose chair, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, said the number was both “incorrect” and “risks giving a false impression that the NHS is awash with cash”.The figures also fly in the face of the Government’s public insistence that it is investing more in the health service, with Jeremy Hunt and Theresa May repeating the mantra of an extra £10bn for the NHS.

The Liberal Democrats said the figures show Tory claims of investment were “disingenuous” while Labour said the Government should use the March budget to close the black hole opening up in the health service’s finances.

Corbyn: Theresa May is in denial over the NHS crisis
In a written statement to the House of Commons health minister Philip Dunne said NHS England’s per capita real terms budget would increase by 3.2 per cent in 2016-17 financial year.

However growth would fall sharply next year, down to just a 0.9 per cent increase in 2017. It would then go negative by 2018-19 with a 0.6 per cent fall in real spending per head in that financial year.

Growth would remain very low in 2019-20 at 0.2 per cent and 0.9 per cent in the years following. The wider health budget outside the NHS is facing even more sustained cuts, with two years of shrinking resource per head and a maximum growth rate of 0.4 per cent after this year. This includes staff training and public health.

Tim Farron, Lib Dem leader, told The Independent: “These Government figures expose just how disingenuous they have been with their claims that they’re investing more in the NHS. The figures were revealed after a written question to the minister by Labour MP Luciana Berger.

May refuses to rule out private US firms taking over NHS services
“It is unbelievable that they keep asking health and care services to provide more services, for more people, with less and less resource. These vital services are already stretched to breaking point.

“We need a long-term funding settlement for health and care. Figures like this show just how essential this initiative is.”

Jon Ashworth, Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, said social care cuts were compounding the health service’s woes. 

Nurses, NHS workers and supporters take part in a demonstration to save Liverpool Women’s Hospital (Getty)
“Ministers have now finally admitted what I've been warning for some time – that head for head, NHS spending will actually be cut next year,” he said.

“Alongside cuts to social care this will simply compound the crisis the NHS is already facing. Theresa May needs to use the Budget this March to give the NHS and social care the funding our constituents expect.”

NHS trusts are reporting record deficits across the country as funding continues to tighten and fails to keep up with demand or inflation. The British Red Cross declared the system was facing a “humanitarian crisis” at the start of the year and said more investment was needed – but ministers have so far refused to release extra cash.

This week the National Audit Office warned that overstretched A&Es were also having a knock-on effect on other parts of the health service such as ambulances, which they said were increasingly missing targets.

The latest numbers of a per capita real terms cut relate only to England, because the health service is devolved to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish governments – with Westminster’s controlling England’s system. 
Anita Charlesworth, director of economics at the Health Foundation, a charity which scrutinises health policy, said the numbers actually downplayed the even bigger challenge the health service was facing.

“Obviously we’ve got an increasing population but the thing with the per capita as well is we’ve also got an ageing population,” she told The Independent.

 

 

[Chindie]

Clearly the NHS isn't offering the standards of service the Great British public expect and they are not getting value for money, and what services are of the respected standard are being exploited and strained by foreigners that are given the right to operations before our own ill children and veterans. So today I announce that the NHS will be supplemented and superceded by the companies the Cabinet has recently invested in.

Or something.

[Xann]

 

[juanpabloangel18]

Found May's refusal (or at least initial refusal) to condemn the US Muslim Ban yesterday disgraceful.

"US immigration policy is their own business" - completely failing to consider the lives and rights of UK Muslims who would be affected by it, let alone how it contradicts the wider principles of justice and tolerance which we loudly claim are British values.

I'm relived to see I am not alone and it in fact has caused a shit storm, with protests in virtually every major area.

I'll be protesting at Downing Street tonight, I can't imagine looking back at this in ten years thinking "I did nothing".

[snowychap]

Just listening to BBC Parliament before Boris's statement and the DWP woman was answering questions on the planned Job Centre closures or rather 'relocations and co-locations'. Her stock answer when people brought up the issues of closing job centres near to some of their constituents and that it meant people would then have to travel further than they were expected to by DWP guidance was that, " I must remind the hon. [blah blah] that we expect JSA claimants to travel up to an hour for work."

When pressed on whether being unable (due to closures) to be able to attend job centres would result in sanctions and whether costs would be reimbursed, she declined to give an answer.

I'm not suggesting that this is just another sneaky way to boost the sanction numbers and values - the idea itself of rationalizing the DWP estate is fine - but I don't doubt that the government would be quite happy about this potential by-product.

Edited February 2, 2017 by snowychap
Centre not Dentre

[Davkaus]

Travelling an hour for work and being paid a wage with which you can pay for the travel is an entirely different prospect to travelling an hour when you're having to survive on as little as £57.90 a week. Assuming there's even public transport available for that journey.

They've be delighted to sanction more people. Nothing like taking money away from someone already living below the poverty line to get these bastards through the day.

The way we treat people out of work in this country is disgusting.

[Xann]

Flash demo tonight...

Quote

*DEMO AGAINST THE #MUSLIMBAN OUTSIDE DOWNING STREET AND ACROSS THE UK, MONDAY 6PM*

SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti
Mohammed Ateek (Syrian refugee)
Ed Miliband MP
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi
Caroline Lucas MP
Wail Qasim (Black Lives Matter)
Tim Farron MP
Mhairi Black MP
Asad Rehman (Friends of the Earth)
Lily Allen
Clive Lewis MP
Zrinka Bralo (Migrants Organise)
Shappi Khorsandi (comedian)
Bianca Jagger
Talha Ahma (Muslim Council of Britain)
Kate Hudson (CND)
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh MP
Malia Bouattia (NUS President)
Natasha Walter (Women for Refugee Women, Women's March)

Facebook

 

[chrisp65]

@tonyh29 is going to be gutted if he misses that gig list.

Chuck a Big Country cover band in the middle of that lot he'd think he'd died and gone to devon. 

[tonyh29]

I was thinking of going just for the comedy value that is Lilly Allen

hope she gets the Brand treatment in a nearby fountain 

[snowychap]

Gary Gibbon reported earlier that May was apparently told when she was at the White House that an executive order banning refugees was coming though they don't appear to have gone in to any further detail about travel bans.

[dAVe80]

So May took the credit for helping the Hillsborough justice campaign, and cited it as one of her achievement in PMQs.

Yeah Theresa, I totally agree. I remember every time she was on TV in the past 20 odd years, she'd be banging on about justice for the 96. Never shut up about it. 

[dAVe80]

JC drops the bomb on May, about Tory led, Surrey Council's deal with the Tory Government, over funding for social care, and rather that answer questions, she goes to default Tory mode, and starts slagging off Labour, and accusing them of using alternative facts (she did learn something from her trip to the US then). For all JC is seen as a joke, he still managed to trounce her at PMQs.

[blandy]

On 01/02/2017 at 23:06, dAVe80 said:

So May took the credit for helping the Hillsborough justice campaign, and cited it as one of her achievement in PMQs.

Yeah Theresa, I totally agree. I remember every time she was on TV in the past 20 odd years, she'd be banging on about justice for the 96. Never shut up about it. 

To be fair to her (not something that comes easy), she was the one home secretary who actually allowed and happily allowed a full and proper inquest. Even Andy Burnham, who did bang on about it for ages said so and thanked her for doing that.

37 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

JC drops the bomb on May, about Tory led, Surrey Council's deal with the Tory Government, over funding for social care, and rather that answer questions, she goes to default Tory mode, and starts slagging off Labour, and accusing them of using alternative facts (she did learn something from her trip to the US then). For all JC is seen as a joke, he still managed to trounce her at PMQs.

And back on happier ground, he did pretty well today. Had an open goal, mind, and you're right, she floundered and didn't answer any of the actual questions she was asked. He was awful last week, good the week before that...

He could and should be getting on top every week, but he's improved his performances quite a bit, which is something I suppose.

[Rodders]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38912428

Quote

key route into the UK for children caught up in Europe's migrant crisis is to close after a total of 350 arrivals.

In a written ministerial statement, the Home Office said it would stop receiving children via the so-called Dubs amendment at the end of March.

The law, designed by peer and former refugee Lord Dubs, aimed to help some of the estimated 90,000 unaccompanied migrant children across Europe.

The peer has accused ministers of a "shameful" decision.

A legal challenge on how the government has handled the legal commitment will go ahead on Friday.

Ministers accepted the Dubs amendment last year after months of pressure from campaigners and members of the public to take children from the "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais.

trying to get into Trumpy wumpy's good books is Mrs May. **** dirty refugee kids, better safe than sorry, why house them here and give them a chance at a decent life when we can tell them to bugger off into radicalism.  More stout philosophy in action, " can't be giving these kids a hand out living space, give them a milimetre and they'll feel entitled to the moon, chancers and beggars really. Cowards too I expect, didn't fancy telling Assad / ISIS / whoever to jolly well do one, that's what I would have done if Henley upon Arden had been invaded by a despot, I'd jolly well have grabbed my cricket bat and biffed the machete wielding guttersnipe for 6. Kids these days. Tish. It'll do em, good, trust me"

[chrisp65]

43 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

JC drops the bomb on May, about Tory led, Surrey Council's deal with the Tory Government, over funding for social care, and rather that answer questions, she goes to default Tory mode, and starts slagging off Labour, and accusing them of using alternative facts (she did learn something from her trip to the US then). For all JC is seen as a joke, he still managed to trounce her at PMQs.

It's happened a few times. She doesn't appear to be very good at dealing with hard questions.

Her natural default reaction appears to be to say something nasty that doesn't actually make much sense and certainly makes it look like she was caught out.

 

As long as the Chinese, Europe and America aren't as good at this stuff as Jeremy Corbyn, we'll be fine.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

It's happened a few times. She doesn't appear to be very good at dealing with hard questions.

This isn't a party political point, but it's actually a very good thing. My reasoning being that the likes of Blair and Cameron were mostly "slick" enough that they could swerve without seeming touched by the uncomfortable truth presented to them in good questions.

May is unable to do that polished swerve, she's not nimble enough mentally, so the wider world gets to see the flaws in what the government is doing. Corbyn is also caught out often in the same way and ends up looking dumb.

so its not a strength of either of them but it does show us the truth more clearly.