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

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Not defending Sunak or this govt, just not sure why people are getting so worked up about this specific policy.

It’s not even a policy is it? It’s certainly not law. It’s also confirmed impossible to implement before the next government.

It’s a complete waste of energy, or as it’s more commonly known, a dead cat.

 

[KentVillan]

9 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s not even a policy is it? It’s certainly not law. It’s also confirmed impossible to implement before the next government.

It’s a complete waste of energy, or as it’s more commonly known, a dead cat.

 

It is a policy... and no I don't think it's a "dead cat" because (a) Sunak is well known for believing in this issue for some time, and (b) a dead cat is when you do something outrageous and hugely distracting, whereas this is a pretty minor policy change, and (c) very few so-called dead cats are actual deliberate dead cats.

[KentVillan]

https://samf.substack.com/p/its-not-a-dead-cat

Quote

It's not a dead cat!

No, really, it isn't.

Sam Freedman

 

Apr 25, 2022

24

31

 

Every time the UK Government announces anything, or anyone in it does something, a chorus goes up on political twitter: “it’s a dead cat!” A few weeks ago one of my tweets, unhappy with the Government’s proposal to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, went viral. There are hundreds of replies telling me it’s a dead cat. If a cabinet minister gives a car crash interview: dead cat. The Ministry of Defence announces a weapons delivery to Ukraine: dead cat. I can’t take it anymore. It isn’t a dead cat, it’s never a dead cat.

We have our Prime Minister to blame for introducing this dread phrase into the British political lexicon. Back in 2013 Boris Johnson wrote a Telegraph article decrying EU proposals to put caps on bankers’ bonuses:

“To understand what has happened in Europe in the last week, we must borrow from the rich and fruity vocabulary of Australian political analysis. Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and the more people focus on the reality the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as ‘throwing a dead cat on the table, mate’.

That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”

The “great campaigner” was Lynton Crosby who ran Johnson’s campaigns for London mayor as well as the Conservative election campaign in 2015. (He was also involved in the 2010 election – I met him on that election night where he seemed primarily concerned with ticking Labour MPs who’d personally insulted him off his list as they lost their seats.)

The phrase re-emerged during the 2015 campaign when, a few days in and with things going badly for the Conservatives, Michael Fallon wrote a Times column saying that Ed Miliband wanted to scrap the nuclear deterrent in order to strike a deal with the Scottish National Party. He also offered a particularly brutal quote: “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.”

This probably didn’t change the outcome all that much, if at all, but elections require a narrative and it was seen, in retrospect, as a turning point as the media moved on from Labour’s favoured issue of Tory tax dodging to whether Miliband would, indeed, scrap Trident and do a deal with the SNP. The Tories triumphantly briefed various journalists that this was a textbook example of dead cattery. And from there it stuck, attached to every single thing that ever happens that diverts attention from whatever the user of the term wants everyone to be talking about.

Fallon’s comment was a “dead cat” as it had the following features:

1.       It was deliberate (we know because they told us afterwards).

2.       It was unpleasant (and untrue) enough to get criticised, which created a lot of attention, but ultimately it advanced a series of points that the Tory campaign wanted aired – including the point about Miliband “knifing his brother” which came up a lot in focus groups.

3.       It did not commit the Government to doing anything. There was no content beyond the accusation. Nor did it do any political harm to them.

Almost nothing that has subsequently been called a dead cat meets these criteria. They tend to be either things the Government does actually want to do, like the Rwanda immigration policy, or giving weapons to Ukraine. Or things that are more embarrassing for the Government than the thing from which they need the distraction. When, last November, they made a total hash out of managing Owen Paterson’s Parliamentary censure for corrupt behaviour, lots of people told me this was happening in order to distract from an overblown NHS privatisation story. As if any Government would choose a political scandal that dominated the headlines for days to a minor policy story that barely anyone had noticed.

 

[Genie]

13 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

It is a policy... and no I don't think it's a "dead cat" because (a) Sunak is well known for believing in this issue for some time, and (b) a dead cat is when you do something outrageous and hugely distracting, whereas this is a pretty minor policy change, and (c) very few so-called dead cats are actual deliberate dead cats.

I just appears to be a massive waste of time which I can only assume it’s some kind of distraction from people drilling into what @markavfc40 mentioned above (all the things he is pledging to fix were broken on his watch)

Quote

The idea appears to be an aspiration rather than a fully developed policy, with the precise mechanics for how it would work not set out. 

The government acknowledges it would not be possible to implement before the next general election

link

[Lichfield Dean]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

https://samf.substack.com/p/its-not-a-dead-cat

 

And this is why I hate him and anyone who voted for him so much.

Your best bet is not to "throw a dead cat" in, it is to understand the opposing argument, accept the facts and attempt to take that on board and adjust your position. NOT have a hissy fit and start deflecting in a big strop 

[tinker]

He's forgetting the fact we have a shortage of maths teachers , although targets are getting closer to being met ...........the target figures have changed. A slight of hand relying on the poor mathematic skills of the electorate.

PM’s ‘maths to 18’ plan must tackle ‘chronic’ teacher shortages, say experts6 hrs agoBy PA News Agency

Quote

 

Figures show that just 65% of the maths teacher target was met for the school year 2019/20, followed by 84% for 2020/2021, 90% for 2021/2022 and 90% for 2022/2023.

Although the shortfall gap has been closing over the four years, the targets themselves have been reduced – from 3,343 i/20 to 2,040 in 2022/2023.

 

 

[Davkaus]

3 hours ago, tinker said:

He's forgetting the fact we have a shortage of maths teachers , although targets are getting closer to being met ...........the target figures have changed. A slight of hand relying on the poor mathematic skills of the electorate.

PM’s ‘maths to 18’ plan must tackle ‘chronic’ teacher shortages, say experts6 hrs agoBy PA News Agency

 

Have they tried to offer to give the existing maths teachers a new coat of paint? It seemed to work for hospitals

[bobzy]

5 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Yes, but the difference is that more grammar schools is a massive **** waste of time, whereas the maths thing is an okay policy.

I agree it's not going to solve the current crises, but it's not like it gets in the way of solving those problems either. Attacking it for the sake of it seems pointless too. He's allowed to propose stuff that has a long term impact, and education is always a good thing to be getting right.

Not defending Sunak or this govt, just not sure why people are getting so worked up about this specific policy.

The main thing that pissed me off about today's announcement was his claim that they are open to negotiating with striking workers / unions, which is clearly utter bullshit. They've done anything but, and that's what we should be focusing on. The maths thing is a sideshow.

I don't think there's a particular getting "worked up" over it, other than there are far more pressing issues right now.

 

However, personally, I don't see what doing maths until 18 rather than 16 would give you in the 'real World' that the country is currently missing out on.  Technological skills would probably be more useful; e.g: Microsoft Excel is very widely used in our Finance department, but most people cannot use it anywhere near efficiently enough.  People create lists in Word and then moan that they can't re-order them etc.  Basic stuff, unknown.

[mjmooney]

9 hours ago, bobzy said:

However, personally, I don't see what doing maths until 18 rather than 16 would give you in the 'real World' that the country is currently missing out on.  Technological skills would probably be more useful; e.g: Microsoft Excel is very widely used in our Finance department, but most people cannot use it anywhere near efficiently enough.  People create lists in Word and then moan that they can't re-order them etc.  Basic stuff, unknown

The school my kids went to somehow managed to get 'academy' status (a bullshit policy imo) as an 'I.T. college'. God only knows how. My older daughter wanted to learn basic HTML, but the school couldn't teach it, so she taught herself in her spare time and published her own website. The younger one had to do a history project on the black death, she did it as a Powerpoint presentation, but the history teacher had no idea (and no facilities) how to view it. And so on. 

[CVByrne]

Right. These 5 pledges make my blood boil. 

1. On inflation. The Bank of England and how global energy and food markets work will do that. 

Rishi actions for "success". zero.

2. On growing economy. The economy grows during periods of inflation. The issue is it's stagflation as inflation is higher than growth. 

Rishi actions required for "success" Zero.  

3. National debt as a % if GDP falling is what he can clame here. Again inflation causes taxes to rise and thus tax take increases relative to previous debt. Also Hunt already put in the tax rises to do most of the budget work.

Rishi actions required for "success./ Minimal

4. NHS waiting lists falling will happen simply by the end of strikes and covid. They are at the peak now and can only go down or NHS collapses.

Rishi actions required for success. Zero.

5. Passing new ridiculous Tory laws which show they're serious about illegal immigration but have zero real impact on the ground other than to inflict undue additional pain of desperate migrants. As easy for a Tory as ordering a Latte. 

Rishi actions required for success. Minimal just pass stupid law.

[Stevo985]

The maths thing sounds like a typical boomer policy aimed at people who prefer the good old days and think kids these days are all thick and it’s their fault for everything. 
 

Yeah teach them more maths, thick words removed. That’ll fix everything. Stupid kids

[Genie]

What laws exactly are they going to pass which will stop people crossing the channel?

We’d have already done it if it was possible. 

[sidcow]

25 minutes ago, Genie said:

What laws exactly are they going to pass which will stop people crossing the channel?

We’d have already done it if it was possible. 

Rule, Britannia!

[tinker]

The refugees coming over on boats.......we should have an agreement with France that any refugees using a boat should be returned straight back to France. Once this has occurred a few times the word will get around and they will stop using boats. It's only a matter of time before 100's are drowned if it continues. 

[Davkaus]

7 minutes ago, tinker said:

The refugees coming over on boats.......we should have an agreement with France that any refugees using a boat should be returned straight back to France. Once this has occurred a few times the word will get around and they will stop using boats. It's only a matter of time before 100's are drowned if it continues. 

What would be the lawful basis for this deportation, and why would France agree to it?

[bannedfromHandV]

I’m not well read on the subject but surely if someone enters a country illegally they can be deported - where to I guess is the more pressing issue.

But yeah, France ain’t going to take them back, France is very happy they left in the first place and I doubt France gives two shits what happens to them once they board a dinghy headed here.

[NurembergVillan]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I’m not well read on the subject but surely if someone enters a country illegally they can be deported - where to I guess is the more pressing issue.

Whilst in the EU we were allowed to send refugees back across to France as part of EU rules, but didn't do it.

Now we've left the EU we're on our own.

[markavfc40]

20 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Whilst in the EU we were allowed to send refugees back across to France as part of EU rules, but didn't do it.

Now we've left the EU we're on our own.

I am sure those who voted for Brexit (especially the ones with a pink gammony complexion) wanted to ensure we get to keep all the brown looking people coming over in the dingies and no longer wanted the option to send them back over to the bloody frogs. Got exactly what they voted for. Sovereignty innit.

[tinker]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

What would be the lawful basis for this deportation, and why would France agree to it?

It's purpose would be to stop the dangerous trend of these little boats, the legality of it all would need to be looked at. 

France should agree to it to save lives the situation is going to end in more horrendous deaths. So far we have been relatively lucky but sooner or later the luck will run out and 100's could be drowned in one incident.

[OutByEaster?]

We're going to need a bigger boat.