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

[Seat68]

You just know he is going to create some form of diplomatic crisis.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

...Elections here are moving in the same direction as those that the US has - every four years, the people get together and vote for the people that they believe would best be able to serve the interests of the lobbyists. That's not a representative democracy - it's corporate oligarchy. When David Davis originally said he'd done the reports into the impact of Brexit in various industry sectors, one of the reasons he gave initially for not releasing them, and for redacting them was that the information within was sensitive to individual companies - those are the people that are protected in the process, not voters, those are the people he works for, those are the people that Brexit is being worked on for, the people this government are attempting to protect - the lobbyists for a corporate structure.

When Donald Trump announced that he recognised Jerusalem as capital of Israel, he did it because of a campaign promise - is that because Jerusalem is a massive vote winner - do dust bowl farmers chew thoughtfully on a sprig of hay and think, "I'll vote for a man who supports Israel in the occupied territories"? No. Of course not - your average American doesn't give a fig - but the pro-Israel lobby does - and it's those people to whom Trump reports, to whom the senate is beholden. It's easy (and fun) to point at idiot Trump and imagine he's the cause, the reason for Americas lurch into insanity - when he's just a front man - if you believe he makes the policy decisions then you're exactly what he wants - Trump does what he's paid to do, by whoever he's paid by - Israel pays; Israel gets Jerusalem. Lockheed Martin pays, Lockheed Martin gets increased tensions in Korea and a good sized US defence budget, Citibank pays; Citibank gets a tax bill. The USA is not by any definition that makes sense a representative democracy and we're headed the same way.

Is this government our worst? Maybe - but it doesn't really matter as much as it used to - Thatcher made rules for business and now because of her and the rules she made, business makes rules for May. This government might be hopeless, it might be doing its best to represent a sector of society that doesn't care or believe in society and as a result looking like it's hopeless because we don't know the aims, but it's the least relevant government we've ever had - over decades, corporate power, money in politics, global markets and financial institutions have moved the power from the democratic process into places they can control it and turned government  into puppetry. In that situation, is it any wonder that government flounders under the instruction of so many different masters?

I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're completely (or mostly) wrong in terms of the diagnosis, Scott. I mean the first quoted sentence "the people get together and vote for the people that they believe would best be able to serve the interests of the lobbyists" - really? is that how you chose your vote? you voted for who you thought would best serve corporate lobbyists? I call hyperbole and plain wrong. People - you, me, everyone voted for all sorts of reasons - against the ones we hated most, for the ones we actually liked quite a bit, or out of long held principles about the NHS or the Environment or Defence or Schools or pensions or even because "I'll be better off under X". Absolutely no-one votes based on their views of what will be best for lobbyists.

Trump - he got in for a number of reasons, not least that Hillary was an awful candidate whatever the interference of Russia. Corporate America, though was largely behind Clinton, she had more funding and more institutional support. Trump, like Obama 8 years before, used social media and populism to appeal directly to your dust bowl workers. He also used (even for politics) staggering lies and plain dishonesty far beyond previous scope. He won, not because he got the most votes (he didn't) but because he won the most states in a (like ours) broken democratic system.

The kerfuffle over N. Korea - that's not at the bidding of Lockheed Martin, or Boeing. That's down to the previous "great leader" dying and being replaced by a spoilt homicidal maniac.

Trump also - he's not there for the corporates, or on behalf of them. He's there for himself. He's there for his ego and his image of himself as a job creator and a man who gets deals done. He's backing things people of his generation often do - coal and oil, heavy industry, no such thing as climate change, and then there's his views on mexicans and muslims - something from the past.

But back to the UK. This government is hopeless. It's incompetent and so is the opposition. Which is not a good situation. But also it's not insoluble and not permanent. It's caused, and here I agree, by the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan, plus a bit of Clinton and Blair. But what's happened is that as a reaction to that, the pendulum is swinging to extremes - either the Tory/UKIP type or the Corbyn type. The opposite of, or cure for water deprivation and de-hydration isn't drowning and it seems like that what people are chasing. it's kind of understandable, but it's utterly foolish, in my view.

I think deep down most people (whether they believe it or not) thought when May talked about working for the just about managing, the poor and the left-behind, most people would have thought "good, I hope she does" whatever their view of tories. Realistically that's what's needed. Someone with the strength to get a grip and safely, fairly and competently make things more fair. Look after things like the NHS, but not to destroy parts of the economy that they don't much like.

The tories "austerity" probably brought about Brexit, and probably is the cause of much of the current problems. Essentially, like we're seeing with Brexit, a few genuinely stupid, deluded, over-confident, over-ambitious, twerps are creating and created havoc because of the tribalism and extremism and because there's a current lack of people of sufficient calibre to put a stop to it. I don't think as you do that it's down to some evil complex of business and Israel (?) and Arms companies and Bankers. I think it's down to basic stupidity, essentially.

There an an awful lot of MPs of different parties who are actually not that far apart in their views and not far from the views of the mass of the UK. Jobs, hospitals, schools, fairness, peace, tolerance...apple pie. They get things wrong, they follow the whips when they should follow their consciences more often. They may thing the NHS should be 100% publicly run, or they may genuinely think private medicine can play a positive role - it doesn't matter, if the debate is then based around facts and evidence and outcomes and listening to experts and a way forward is reached. But that kind of thing seems to have just fallen by the wayside of tribalism within parties. The problem therefore is a flawed system in the UK (and US) where true democracy is not able to flourish, and which provides cracks for the bad guys to influence things. With a better, fairer voting system, the mass of what people want could much more likely happen than will be the case while we've got this highly split left-right situation we have now.

 

[HanoiVillan]

North Korea probably isn't a good example of a policy driven by arms companies' bottom lines, but just replace it with Saudi Arabia/Yemen and it'll be rescued as an analysis. 

[tonyh29]

that's a good post Pete ... only part I sorta disagree with , is that in the same way that Brown didn't cause the global meltdown in 2008 and wasn't to "blame " for it , the Tories aren't necessarily to blame for austerity ... just about the whole of Europe adopted it , Germany didn't really give most of them a lot of choice ....  heck once Balls U-turned on it we even had Labour and Tory arguing over who would cut the most to solve the deficit  (until Corbyn came along and decided he's just make us pay using the same money 16 times over )

the US via various stimulus bills went the other way and on paper their economy recovered better than ours / the rest  , but all they've done is push a shit load of debt into the future (higher interest payments which will slow growth in the future) ... you can argue we didn't get the same growth , thus austerity didn't work  ... but  that also ignores the fact that in Europe we were seeing a big downturn in our primary export market...

the Tory's may have cut deeper and longer than they needed to , that's the discussion to be had , though as it usually involves the words ideological ,evil  , moral compass and social conscious my eyes glaze over and I go and play crossy road instead 

From my limited understanding austerity seems to have also been a major factor in Merkel not getting a mandate or being able to form a  government  ( immigration being the other factor ) ... hence my reluctance to call it a Tory austerity any more than I'd call it Browns financial crises

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

the Tories aren't necessarily to blame for austerity ... just about the whole of Europe adopted it , 

all [the US]'ve done is push a shit load of debt into the future (higher interest payments which will slow growth in the future) ...

you can argue we didn't get the same growth , thus austerity didn't work  ... but  that also ignores the fact that in Europe we were seeing a big downturn in our primary export market...

the Tory's may have cut deeper and longer than they needed to , that's the discussion to be had 

I don't think these are right at all. Even if lots of other European countries adopted austerity, that doesn't excuse the Tories from making the wrong choice. Greek voters can worry about the Greek government; I'm worried about ours. The US hasn't simply pushed higher interest rates into the future, it has also increased its economic capacity to pay those rates. European economies have been growing quite strongly for a couple of years now, and we have fallen to last place in growth charts. And I can't agree that the only discussion 'to be had' is about the right amount of austerity; whether it should have happened at all also needs to be part of the discussion. 

[markavfc40]

32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't think these are right at all. Even if lots of other European countries adopted austerity, that doesn't excuse the Tories from making the wrong choice. 

Although it is no surprise that some will use it to defend them this need for austerity being the reason for the savage cuts we have seen over the last seven years is absolute bollocks . This was the Tories wet dream to be able to use austerity as an excuse to decimate public services and the welfare safety net and give the weakest and most vulnerable a good kicking. It is what they do. It is part of their DNA.

I am not saying that in certain areas cuts couldn't have been made but there was a balance to be struck and there was another way and that was to raise taxes for those of us who can afford to pay more or at the very least not to cut them for those of us that didn't need a tax cut. There was certainly no need to destroy adult social care, to under fund the NHS to the extent it is now pretty much failing to meet any of its targets, to leave the Police force understaffed, to have our children leaving university saddled with debt, to have disabled people bumping themselves off after losing benefits and support services. I could go on all day but the bottom line is the Tories over the last 7 years simply made the choices they always make.

Edited December 8, 2017 by markavfc40

[chrisp65]

I love this place.

I've scrolled down the last few posts and thought 'yes, that's the good point right there'. Then the next post picks at it and I've thought 'ooh, good spot, you're right'.

Well done chaps.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

as an excuse to decimate public services and the welfare safety net and give the weakest and most vulnerable a good kicking

It's one thing trying to encourage people to stand on their own 2 feet,  it's another when the person in question has no feet or legs.

 

[darrenm]

On 07/12/2017 at 21:32, darrenm said:

Anyone else reminded?

[tonyh29]

On 08/12/2017 at 07:56, bickster said:

They are sending Boris to Tehran, if I was that poor woman’s husband, I'd be very worried

The cynic in me thinks her release has already been secured and he’s just flying out for a photo op .... guess we will see 

 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The cynic in me thinks her release has already been secured and he’s just flying out for a photo op .... guess we will see 

 

The cynic in me says he'll arrive in time for her public execution.

[chrisp65]

Hopefully he's going to do some guerilla marketing for his new britain he's helped to create. He could leave a selection of desirable items to whet their appetite for more trade. A selection of artisan jams, left in the hotel room. Some wiff waff paddles and quality socks carelessly left in a cab. Perhaps that booze he was previously hoping to sell to the Sikhs.

I'd guess as long as he doesn't use her spy code name, there must be an announcement coming on her release. I just hope she isn't being kept a few extra days so he gets his photo op and I hope they're not playing games and just teasing her release.

Come on Boris, whilst a man of honour would do the decent thing and retire from public life, do the next best thing and carry out your day job competently. We're rooting for ya!

[Xann]

Tory energy policy sucking hard.

Quote

 

AFTER a six-year hiatus, the four shale gas licence-holders have simultaneously recommenced drilling.

All involved are carefully coordinating the party line as well as the timing. Every related government publication is headed “Strong environmental protections are in place”, in case we suspected otherwise, and everyone choruses in unison that UK regulations are “the gold standard”.

But they protest too much. Photography of the most prominent activity, Cuadrilla’s “drilling pad” outside Blackpool, shows the site like a four-acre paddling pool, waterlogged by surface water and waste fluids that are seeping into the surrounding countryside (see picture). Gold standard? More like, er, bog standard.

Five violations
Competently managing waste fluids is critical in fracking, which involves pumping millions of gallons of water and other liquids down the wells, a lot of which comes back up again conveying “impurities” from underground. Waste from Cuadrilla’s 2011 well contained “naturally occurring radioactive materials” (see Eye 1347) at 90 times the level considered safe.

In contrast to its dilatory performance last time, when it was content to allow the driller to mark its own homework (Eye 1342), the Environment Agency (EA) has been regularly visiting the new site, responding to reports of flooding, illicit discharge of fluids into a nearby brook, rupture of an artesian water basin caused by the company’s operations, and subsidence. So far, the EA has found five violations of Cuadrilla’s permits.

But fracking hasn’t even started yet. If Cuadrilla has flooding problems at such a preliminary stage, how will it cope when the serious quantities of water start to flow? Last time around it was permitted to dump waste liquids in the Manchester Ship Canal.

 

Private Eye

[Xann]

Quote

 

The boss of one of the NHS’s biggest trusts has resigned in protest at what he claims is such serious government underfunding that hospitals cannot perform their key role properly.

I’m quitting as a hospital boss: dire NHS funding problems give me no choice

Bob Kerslake, who was the head of the civil service until 2015, is quitting as the chairman of the board at King’s College hospital in London, after a long-running dispute with the NHS watchdog over its finances. Ministers are in denial about the reality of how much extra money the NHS requires, he says.

In an article for the Guardian, Lord Kerslake, a highly respected crossbench peer and former permanent secretary at the department for communities and local government, explained that he is stepping down because hospitals are being asked to agree to meet unrealistically demanding savings targets.

 

Guardian

Run it into the ground. Sell it cheap to your Mates. Give them BOGOF property to operate from.

Still oinking it up then.

[peterms]

 

[chrisp65]

How utterly depressing this morning to listen to Jo Johnson MP, Minister of State for Universities referring to degrees as ‘products’.
Apparently is would suit everyone if degree courses could be accelerated. Simply pay more per year but do all the work in 2 years not 3. That way, the better students can prove to employers they are capable of getting organised and getting on with it. They will be better prepared for work life. Businesses can reap the rewards of degree level workforce that much sooner. Student debt starts getting paid off quicker.

What a thoroughly depressing view of the world. Condense the university product to get educated employees paying back their debts quicker. 

I notice Jo went to the European school in Brussels, then on to Ashdown House, from there it was Eton and from there it was Oxford with post grad studies at Universite libre de Bruxelles. Doubtless all offering condensed products and competitive prices in a time efficient process.
 

 

 

[Davkaus]

To be fair, the first year of a lot of courses could be condensed in to a month without anything of value being lost.

It's a great year, socially, but if I were a student now, I'd resent being a minimum of £9k down for a rehash of A levels.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Davkaus

[HanoiVillan]

This blog post reaches a depressingly inevitable conclusion about 'accelerated degrees':

'the assumption seems to be that the parental contribution will make up the difference . . . [the evidence suggests] that accelerated courses are not going to work in London . . . Two-year courses may not end up cheaper for the individual if they need to access commercial debt to cover the additional weeks they are studying full-time.'

https://andrewmcgettigan.org/2017/02/28/30-week-maintenance-support/

Quote

30 week maintenance support
February 28, 2017
After my blog last week on living costs while studying full-time, a tweet by Gavan Conlon reminded me to look at the relevant Diamond Review recommendations for Welsh HE (and Welsh students in RUK).

That report proposed combined maintenance grant and loan support to a maximum of £8100 per year for a full-time student studying away from home outside London on top of up to £9000 in tuition fee loans.

The split between loan and grant would be means-tested against parental household income as per the chart below.

welsh-loan-grant

Those studying in London would be able to access 25% more – up to £10, 125 – while those living at home would be eligible for £6885.

These maximum figures are less than the loan-only amounts available to English-domiciled students who started in 2016/17 who can access £8200 (away from home outside of London), £10,700 (in London) and £6904 (at home).

The Diamond recommendation though would consider indexing these figures to the National Living Wage – currently £7.20 ph.

And presents its rationale clearly: the maintenance support available is calculated at NLW with full-time study considered to be the equivalent of 37.5 hours per week over the course of three 10-week terms (37.5 * 30 *£7.20 = £8100). Those staying at home get 15% less and those going to London get 25% more.

This is welcome clarity. But there seem to be a some obvious questions:

Is it the case that undergraduate students are expected not to study over the winter and spring breaks? Are assignment deadlines for early January or late April a thing of the past? Wouldn’t most lecturers expect exam performance or the quality of extended essays and dissertations to improve if students aren’t working full-time at every holiday?

More importantly, many students sign rental contracts for university accommodation that run over 40 weeks, not 30. See UCL rent strike pages for an example. There we see £8000 accommodation charges that don’t leave much left of that £10,125 or £10,700.

It strikes me that those points represent a set of good reasons for increasing full-time maintenance support to 40 weeks: so we need another 1/3rd added to the amounts given above. (This 30-week level of maintenance support leaves bigger questions for accelerated degrees given that students won’t have the summer for earning).

A final point, the Diamond review also recommended that students receive maintenance support monthly. But if universities are also asking for the term’s rent upfront this is likely to create cash shortfalls which may drive students to commercial debt.

Update – 1 March 2017

David Malcolm has alerted me to Student Finance England’s regulations on ‘long course loans’, which mean my comments on accelerated courses need correction.

For each extra week of study beyond 30 and up to 45, a full-time student can receive an additional weekly amount of maintenance loan.

In 2016/17, if parental household income is below £39,796 per year then the student is entitled to an extra £57 per week for living at home, £88 pw away from home outside London, and £113 away from home in London.  This would seem to imply that SFE thinks rents outside London are £31 per week and that you can find accommodation in the capital for £56 pw!

A worked example in the SFE guidelines for 2016/17 shows that this ‘long course’ amount drops quite quickly depending on household income. A student on a 37 week course coming from a household income of £45 000 and living away from home outside London would only receive an extra £36 in total for their extra 7 weeks. Coming from a household that’s only £5000 a year better off means that they don’t get anything like £616 (7 weeks * £88 pw). Here, the assumption seems to be that the parental contribution will make up the difference.

This would suggest that accelerated courses are not going to work in London and that the long course loan needs rethinking in relation to the ‘parental contribution’ thresholds. Two-year courses may not end up cheaper for the individual if they need to access commercial debt to cover the additional weeks they are studying full-time.

9

 

[chrisp65]

If you’re at University from a ‘bog standard’ comprehensive, sometimes that first year is bringing you up to speed with the style and content of how a degree works. The correct filtering of information, just the correct way to reference your material. Hell, it’s a lesson in how to get yourself out of bed and submitting work by due dates. This isn’t even bringing in the whole ‘experience’ of student life.
The course price isn’t being reduced by any significant amount. So had a reduced duration course been offered in the case of nippers like mine, the part time job to pay for the course would be more difficult to uphold, whilst the costs have gone up. That CV would have a 2 year degree on it, but no longer any reference from an actual employer.
 

[bickster]

Has this dick ever been to University? If so what degree did he get?

I'd love to know how you learn a new language from scratch to degree level in two years, including a year studying abroad (kind of essential). as this is what my daughter is currently doing.

Most final year students take most of their final year to write their dissertation which again is an essential part of the degree

complete and utter tit