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

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I am looking forward to the new "Strong and Stable",  I thought that was hillarious to be honest.  If they were "Strong and Stable" back then,  WTF are they now.

 

Now that's a new game the whole forum can play.... could be amusing!

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

"Glad to Clad"

"The Conservatives,  we have you covered"

[HanoiVillan]

Useful guide to media bias in the UK: try mentally replacing 'Sajid Javid' with 'Jeremy Corbyn', 'islamophobic' with 'anti-semtic', 'Conservative' with 'Labour' and 'Muslim Council' with 'Board of Deputies' and this story would be leading the news for a week or more. This actual story won't even make it into tomorrow's papers. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by HanoiVillan

[ml1dch]

On 25/02/2018 at 10:20, HanoiVillan said:

i believe Corbyn asked him to donate to a homelessness charity and a food bank in Mansfield (Bradley's constituency). 

£15,000 was the cost it would seem. Not paid by Ben Bradley in the end, obvs, but by Tory party donors.

Edit - one of whom is CEO of the Conservative Party.

Edited June 8, 2018 by ml1dch

[Xann]

Quote

 

The public health record of the 2010-2018 UK Government

In the eight years since the May 2010 general election, the health of people living in the United Kingdom has faltered. At first the only evidence came from surveys in which people started to say in greater numbers that their health was getting worse. Then they started dying a little earlier than before, and then a lot earlier. By early 2018 we were seeing slowdowns in health improvements not experienced since at least the 1890s.

In some areas of the country life expectancy began to fall. It then fell for all the poorest of infants born in the country.

Infant mortality rate (95% confidence interval) by socio-economic classification 2008-2016.

However, whenever any suggestion was made that central government austerity and health policies might had an adverse impact on the health of the nations of the UK, these suggestions were always (and without exception) dismissed out-of-hand by the department of health media representatives as being preposterous suggestions.

In this talk the story is told, some of the evidence presented and the question raised as to who in government did not know. Who might have known and did not care. And who knew, cared, but thought all this was a price worth paying for what they really wanted to happen to health and other public services. To privatise a service first you have to run it down.

 

Danny Dorling Lecture @ Bristol University here

[chrisp65]

On that one isolated issue, the infant mortality rising, there may possibly be another explanation.

It was covered on BBC R4 'More or Less' this week.

Their take on the rise was that in some parts of the country there has been a policy change on what counts as a live birth and a 'late miscarriage'. Previously when a baby was born at 22 or 24 weeks it had no chance of being viable but it was very difficult to find a pulse or get any of the usual signs of life. So, they were pronounced still born or miscarried.

Then some hospitals realised that if they couldn't prove for 20 or 30 minutes whether the baby was viable, they could declare it alive. Then announce it dead 15 minutes later. This difference means there is a birth certificate and a death certificate.

This means that there is time off work to grieve and financial assistance. 

They estimate this happened in about 70 or 80 cases in one year. Which would raise infant mortality by 0.2%

***

edit: and I've just been told by my wife that this also means that once you can have a registered birth, you also have the right to a burial not a disposal.

Edited June 9, 2018 by chrisp65

[snowychap]

Universal Credit is crap:

Quote

The £1.9bn Universal Credit system may end up costing more to administer than the benefits system it is replacing, according to the National Audit Office.

Ministers will never know if their aim of putting 200,000 extra people in work, or saving £2.1bn in fraud and error, will work, the watchdog says.

It adds some claimants waited eight months for payment amid the switch to UC, which rolls six benefits into one.

The government said UC will bring a £34bn return over 10 years.

It said more people would get into work - and stay there longer - and that it had taken a "listen and learn" approach to the introduction of the system.

The move to the UC system has long been criticised for its delayed and flawed implementation, with more than 110,000 people paid late in 2017 alone.

Meg Hillier, chair of the Public Accounts Committee said the introduction of UC had been "one long catalogue of delay with huge impact on people's lives".

And the Child Poverty Action Group questioned whether the government should push on with a programme that was "demonstrably failing".

But the public spending watchdog's report found that so many changes had been made to job centres and working practices that there was no "alternative but to continue".

Eight years after work began on UC, only 10% of the total number of people expected to claim are on the system, the NAO says.

And one in five do not receive their full payment on time, the report adds.

A significant minority of those paid late, some 20% - these are usually the more needy and complicated cases - are waiting five months or more to be paid.

And yet the Department for Work and Pensions does not accept that UC has caused hardship among claimants, the report says.

The report points to a recent internal departmental report showing 40% of claimants are experiencing financial difficulties.

It says the DWP has not shown sufficient sensitivity towards some claimants as it will not accept late payments have caused hardship to people, because advances are available.

It argues if claimants take up these opportunities, hardship should not occur.

This approach had led the DWP to "dismiss evidence of claimants' difficulties and hardship instead of working with these bodies to establish an evidence base for what is actually happening".

"The result has been a dialogue of claim and counter-claim and gives the unhelpful impression of a department that is unsympathetic to claimants."

Analysis of DWP payment data revealed that in 2017, around one-quarter (113,000) of new claims were not paid in full on time.

Late payments were delayed on average by four weeks, but from January to October 2017, 40% of those affected by late payments waited in total around 11 weeks or more.

Some 20% waited almost five months and about 8% had to wait for eight months.

Despite recent improvements, one-fifth of new claimants in March 2018 did not receive their full entitlement on time. Some 13% received no payment on time.

... more on link

The bit I've highlighted is critical, I think. It shows just how the government have blundered on with something beyond the point of no return and therefore have to stick to the line(s) that they come out with publicly.

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Universal Credit is crap:

The bit I've highlighted is critical, I think. It shows just how the government have blundered on with something beyond the point of no return and therefore have to stick to the line(s) that they come out with publicly.

Brexit?

[Xann]

On 09/06/2018 at 16:44, chrisp65 said:

On that one isolated issue, the infant mortality rising, there may possibly be another explanation.

Did you listen to it?

He documents the NHS sliding away down the timeline.

It starts with dental health in the children of poor families up North declining.

Standards start falling everywhere as the Tory malaise spreads.

It's one to boil your piss.

 

[Chindie]

There are times when you look at the goings on in parliament and have to wonder at the bizarreness of it. Like every time Philip Davis does anything.

Today, there was a debate about making 'upskirting' a specific offence in line with other voyeurism offences.

It got blocked because some old fart Tory objected. Seemingly he has a problem with criminalising the act of secretly photographing women under their skirts. Officially he likes to block laws he considers 'flabby' being enacted.

What an utter word removed.

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, Chindie said:

There are times when you look at the goings on in parliament and have to wonder at the bizarreness of it. Like every time Philip Davis does anything.

Today, there was a debate about making 'upskirting' a specific offence in line with other voyeurism offences.

It got blocked because some old fart Tory objected. Seemingly he has a problem with criminalising the act of secretly photographing women under their skirts. Officially he likes to block laws he considers 'flabby' being enacted.

What an utter word removed.

I know the way this is being reported and on the surface it looks like he's doing a heinous thing but I'm always suspicious of any law that inhibits personal freedom, especially in areas such as photography. The intent of the law is one thing, how it gets utilised at a later date is entirely another (As we all see too often - Terrorist laws?). These type of laws are also one small step away from requiring consent before photographing people in a public place. I'd need to read in depth what the law stated before having an actual opinion on it and the Tory MPs actions but I always instantly default to against mode until I read enough.

 

Anyone got a link to what the law actually said?

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Anyone got a link to what the law actually said?

Voyeurism (Offences) Bill

Quote

A BILL TO

Make certain acts of voyeurism an offence.

BE IT ENACTED

by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

...rest of bill on link

 

[Chindie]

He's basically a word removed. Supported by that other walking chunk of smeg Philip Davies, shockingly.

His voting record is just a running tally of shithousery. At least he's in the right party.

I hope people keep taking photos of his crotch. See how he likes it.

[penguin]

Apparently he blocked it solely on the principal that he doesn’t like private member’s bills. 

What an utter rocket polisher. To think the guy is knighted as well.

[HanoiVillan]

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Voyeurism (Offences) Bill

 

Thanks, I think that's actually tight enough to be a perfectly acceptable piece of legislation. It's unusually specific. 

[ml1dch]

Apparently he's spent the last twenty years going to every sparsely attended Friday afternoon vote, when 95% of MPs have clocked off for the weekend, to make sure things aren't being pushed into law without being properly scrutinized and debated.

So I'd say his intentions on this are admirable, even if it throws up aberrations like today.

On the flip side, he's also one of those rabid Europhobes, so clearly a colossal bell-end who can suck up every bit of bile thrown at him on this matter.

[Chindie]

28 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Apparently he's spent the last twenty years going to every sparsely attended Friday afternoon vote, when 95% of MPs have clocked off for the weekend, to make sure things aren't being pushed into law without being properly scrutinized and debated.

So I'd say his intentions on this are admirable, even if it throws up aberrations like today.

On the flip side, he's also one of those rabid Europhobes, so clearly a colossal bell-end who can suck up every bit of bile thrown at him on this matter.

Apparently only does it with things he doesn't like and is quite happy to utilise the things he's so principled against when it suits him.

He's a real nasty piece of work. To steal from the Secret Barrister, if theres a side to a debate, he's on the wrong side of it.

Proper Tory word removed.

[Risso]

It looks quite badly drafted to me as I'd have thought the purposes bit is a bit weak.  The causing the victims distress bit would probably never occur, as I'd imagine that in a lot of cases the victim is unaware of the crime.  That leaves plod having to prove the accused has obtained sexual gratification from the images.  If anything it's too specific.  Not that I'm a lawyer or anything.

[coda]