politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile, Labour is redefining the domestic consensus

Two threads?

This has been obvious since Hammond took over from Osborne. A weak, incompetent, minority government like this one meets every challenge with we are spending more. Once additional spending becomes the expected norm then arguing you are spending enough becomes perilous.

Some of this is not necessarily wrong. We have had the best part of 10 years of financial restraint since Brown's disaster and the deficit is now largely eliminated, albeit debt levels are more than double what they were pre-crash. It is inevitable that the pips are going to be squeaking in various parts of the public sector after such a period. What I think is less forgivable is that this government gives no sense of what its priorities are, what it is hoping to achieve with the additional money now available and why some public spending is good and some is not.

Mr. L, the failure to mention, debt, deficit, or interest payments is woeful. BBC had a lot about low education funding, but the interest payments on debt are circa 160% of the annual Education budget.

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Mr. Royale, Osborne also made great running on the economy. May and Hammond are pathetic in this regard.

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Gardenwalker said:

The more we learn about Brexit, the more crooked it looks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-more-we-learn-about-brexit-the-more-crooked-it-looks/2019/03/08/b011517c-411c-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html

Interesting read. Unfortunately you'd need a fraud squad bigger and brighter than ours to unravel it

This is an argument to gladden my heart this morning. What could be better than Corbyn destroying the Thatcherite consensus from the safety of opposition?

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, the failure to mention, debt, deficit, or interest payments is woeful. BBC had a lot about low education funding, but the interest payments on debt are circa 160% of the annual Education budget.

And Hammond's response was that if people would only vote for the deal he can have a proper splurge of all the money he has been "saving" (while debt continues to grow). Once a Tory Chancellor has conceded that is more than possible the credibility of attacks on Labour's fantasy spending is holed below the water line. Useless.

I think David’s central thesis is right: the Conservatives aren’t attempting to win the public over on the economic arguments from first principles, which is a big mistake.

Thatcher and her ministers didn’t let a single interview she did, whether TV or radio, pass without making this argument.

In contrast those on the left constantly urge that austerity is a political not an economic choice and that it is a choice that has restrained growth. When the deficit was £150bn that argument was so ridiculous as to be laughable. When its at £20bn it needs a more careful rebuttal.

Interesting news re Labour and a second EU vote .

It’s likely they might not put the amendment on Mays vote but on the extension , or might wait till later . I think this makes sense . There’s no majority for it yet. Aswell as this Keir Starmer together with the pollster Peter Kellner will be addressing Labour MPs from Leave seats . The myth surrounding those Leave seats and the Labour voters there has been an issue.

Jonathan said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, the failure to mention, debt, deficit, or interest payments is woeful. BBC had a lot about low education funding, but the interest payments on debt are circa 160% of the annual Education budget.

The govt claimed this was all done in order to spend billions on its Brexit folly.

Not quite but almost as bad. They claimed that they would need to spend billions extra to support the UK economy in the event of a no deal Brexit and therefore had to keep this fire power available. Of course that concedes the money can be and will be spent whether or supporting our economy generally or increasing specific public spending. The spending review this summer may leave not much more than a fag packet between the parties economically despite all the rhetoric.

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.

+1

So the calls on Socialist Media are for "more police" - what are these extra officers supposed to do? Twiddle their thumbs?

AlastairMeeks said:

It’s worse than that. The Thatcher consensus is one of many things that Leavers have loved to death. Austerity is over, despite Britain’s still poor public spending figures (at this point a diehard will leap in to point out recent monthly deficit figures and will ignore the still-woeful debt figures). We’re rounding the next bend of Shit Creek and the rapids approach.

Agreed. We need 3-4 years of a smallish surplus and 4-5% nominal GDP growth. Unfortunately the government took far, far too long in eliminating the deficit and we still spend £60bn per year on subsidising wages/housing for people who work. In the next recession the latter figure could double.

Spending restraint is still needed but given no party is going to really stick to it now, best just prepare ourselves as best we can I guess.

Good article.

To throw into the mix, what are the political philosophy of the TIG?

OblitusSumMe said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It’s worse than that. The Thatcher consensus is one of many things that Leavers have loved to death. Austerity is over, despite Britain’s still poor public spending figures (at this point a diehard will leap in to point out recent monthly deficit figures and will ignore the still-woeful debt figures). We’re rounding the next bend of Shit Creek and the rapids approach.

I think George Osborne's original schedule would have had us on the fifth year of paying off some of the debt by now, in order to be prepared for the next crash. Unfortunately he failed.

It proved too politically tough. Even after 2015 too many rebellions over austerity were clearly on the horizon, signalling further and further delays would be coming. And now the narrative is not about how to save more, or that things are still precarious, it's how much more is to be spent. We are never getting a surplus.

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.

Never mind temporary , they should be swamping these places, rounding up the knife carriers and locking them up for a very long time. Stop the liberal snowflake whining about it being racist or not nice or whatever, just stop it. Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.

+1

So the calls on Socialist Media are for "more police" - what are these extra officers supposed to do? Twiddle their thumbs?

Locally the issue isn't knives but it is the same age of teenager who rightly thinks there are no police and wrongly thanks to shit parenting thinks they can do what they want. The extra money for overtime is needed so that officers can be flooded into trouble areas to hassle errant teens until they realise they can't get away with this shit.

Not that we have officers available to work overtime. My small town shares a neighbourhood policing team with neighbouring small towns. That team has just been cut by 2 PCs.

From it's previous complement of 2 PCs...

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Mr. Ace, Stacey Dooley didn't fly a thousand miles to join a cult of child-crucifying genocidal lunatics.

malcolmg said:

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.

..... Police seem to have time to chase people when some halfwit phones up and says they have been offended by a comment on twitter. Get those that are left out on the streets nicking these halfwits.

LOL!!

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.

Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.

The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.

The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

JosiasJessop said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What I don't understand is this - are the Tory ministers actually stupid or do they believe they are the only not stupid people and that everyone else is stupid.

Crime as an example. As the Tories took a knife to police funding Home Secretary May was told in explicit detail what would happen to intelligence gathering and the awful consequences of that. No it won't she told the police, only for it to happen exactly as described.

Now we have the spectacle of ministers trying to insist that May was right, what the police said would happen thanks to cuts might have happened but its definitely not down to cuts, and besides which here's more money so it's fixed. That the money proffered is a fraction of what has been cut doesn't seem to register.

It's the old rule. Voters will vote for a competent bastard or an incompetent sweetie, but not an incompetent bastard. Which the Tories demonstrably are. Except of course that Brexit remains the wild card along with Jezbollah, and almost anything unpredictable can happen going forward

Would you be willing to see stop and search increased as a temporary measure to try to tackle knife crime, whilst longer-term measure are introduced?

Yes. Whilst I understand the concerns of the BAME communities about stop and search, it is predominantly their communities who are both carrying knives and falling victim to knives.

A fair answer. It is a problem that has many causes, and solutions are difficult (although Scotland may show us a way forward with that).

One fix we need to look at is the culture behind knives and youths.

Interesting article on that subject.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/were-at-a-fork-in-the-road-to-hell/

Of course most politicians don’t dare talk about fatherless families, drug criminality and gang culture, when it’s much easier to talk about government spending and police numbers.

CD13 said:

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.

Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.

The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.

The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.

Mr Flashman,


I agree.

Selective victimhood allows virtue-signalling with a vengeance.

If Ms Dooley encourages the first world to put its hand in its pocket, more power to her. Perhaps fewer babies would die in the third world then.

It's sad for the misguided girl, but sympathy is in sparse supply. The media thrives on sob-stories so it will run it for all it's worth.

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

She could have avoided this unpleasantness by not joining IS.

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

As has been pointed out, UK journos and aid workers are going in and out of the region regularly so there's no impassable barrier to movement.

It's almost impressive the way that this government has gone from big, tough Javid keeping the British public safe and making it clear that Daesh scum have relinquished their rights to UK citizenship, to bleating feebly about not having the mechanisms to evac people.

Almost impressive if you haven't already priced in them being self-serving, principle-free no marks.

Her Dutch husband wanted her to join him in the Netherlands.

On topic, this bothers me less than it would have done when I first started posting here, when I wanted to slash and burn the State. Most people don't want this, and one can't force them in that direction. So, the government (which still has a huge lead over Labour on economic issues) should make a virtue of necessity, and relax austerity.

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

No, it's if they're Islamists.

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

They don't like jihadists, at any rate.

kjohnw said:

Roger said:

CD13 said:

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.

Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.

The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.

The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.

A future where our sovereignty is taken away from us and slowly replaced with a soviet style union with one president one currency one set of laws One army , one anthem , power in the hands of the unaccountable wealthy elite, ruling over the plebs who are too thick to understand the complicated issues of government , which benefits big business, the rich lining their pockets at the expense of the poor, rules and dictats coming down from the echelons of Brussels telling how we have to live our lives, what we can and can’t eat , what we can and cannot say, loss of freedom of speech, and law making body that doesn’t have the protections of the magna carta and habeus corpus, erosion of our hard won freedoms , in the interests of European Unity, it’s a failed project and ultimately will self destruct .
Great future that Roger

Utterly bonkers.
I think you lost us at “soviet style union”.

Theuniondivvie said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

No, it's if they're Islamists.

And the 2 week old offspring of Islamists, presumably.

Her Dutch husband wanted her to join him in the Netherlands.

Roger said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

No, it's if they're Islamists.

How could you tell from Farage's poster whether they were merely Muslim or Islamists?

Um, the ones that join IS, perhaps? You don't actually sympathise with IS, do you, Roger?

Roger said:

Dura_Ace said:

MaxPB said:

Dura_Ace said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

She and her dead sprog are in al-Hawl so the UK government could tell the SDF (with whom we will have embedded "advisors") to drive her to the Iraqi border at Rabia (30 minute drive).

Some junior FO spod being punished for some fuck up would meet her at the border with a fresh passport be detailed to take to Irbil airport (maybe a 3 hour drive) and put her on a flight to Stansted via Vienna or Frankfurt. She flies Y class, infant corpse goes in the overhead locker.

If it were Stacey fucking Dooley stuck in that camp do you think the British state couldn't have come up with a way to exfiltrate her?

Possible yes, but why would we do any of that?

Because that kid that The Saj just let die was an innocent British citizen and, because this is unfortunately the real world, you can't repatriate the child without its mother, Jihadi Spice.

If Brexit has taught us anything it's that that the Great British public don't like foreigners particularly if they're Muslim

Roger I think you mean unionists don't like foreigners and why anyone would be surprised at that , means they have been living in cloud cuckoo land.

kjohnw said:

Roger said:

CD13 said:

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.

Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.

The children continue to bicker, their inexperience of the world obvious, but the MPs see it as a chance to enhance their careers, not enact the will of the people. We had a smile at the innocence of voters, but went on to discuss more important things.

The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.

A future where our sovereignty is taken away from us and slowly replaced with a soviet style union with one president one currency one set of laws One army , one anthem , power in the hands of the unaccountable wealthy elite, ruling over the plebs who are too thick to understand the complicated issues of government , which benefits big business, the rich lining their pockets at the expense of the poor, rules and dictats coming down from the echelons of Brussels telling how we have to live our lives, what we can and can’t eat , what we can and cannot say, loss of freedom of speech, and law making body that doesn’t have the protections of the magna carta and habeus corpus, erosion of our hard won freedoms , in the interests of European Unity, it’s a failed project and ultimately will self destruct .
Great future that Roger

CUCKOO

kjohnw said:

A future where our sovereignty is taken away from us and slowly replaced with a soviet style union with one president one currency one set of laws One army , one anthem , power in the hands of the unaccountable wealthy elite, ruling over the plebs who are too thick to understand the complicated issues of government , which benefits big business, the rich lining their pockets at the expense of the poor, rules and dictats coming down from the echelons of Brussels telling how we have to live our lives, what we can and can’t eat , what we can and cannot say, loss of freedom of speech, and law making body that doesn’t have the protections of the magna carta and habeus corpus, erosion of our hard won freedoms , in the interests of European Unity, it’s a failed project and ultimately will self destruct .
Great future that Roger

Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

On domestic matters, it'd be interesting to see how criticism of Javid over the death of Shamima Begum's son plays with the public. Are Abbott and Labour on a winner with their angle?

My Facebook feed has several people who are hopping mad about it; but then they're the Venezuela-supporting, Putin-excusing, Corbyn-loving crowd ...

It's like many things - a great argument until a journalist asks the first question. In this case its "and how, exactly, could we have got them back to the UK?"

As has been pointed out, UK journos and aid workers are going in and out of the region regularly so there's no impassable barrier to movement.

It's almost impressive the way that this government has gone from big, tough Javid keeping the British public safe and making it clear that Daesh scum have relinquished their rights to UK citizenship, to bleating feebly about not having the mechanisms to evac people.

Almost impressive if you haven't already priced in them being self-serving, principle-free no marks.

Those aid workers and journalists have paperwork to confirm who they are and aren’t subject to arrest in either country you have to pass through to get from the camp to the UK. There is a problem, if the route is via a country that wants to arrest you, you don’t have ID that confirms who you are, and that ID would result in you being arrested as soon as you entered the intermediate country.

So as I stated in my previous post, she has a few problems that make things slightly more difficult than others make out.

London & Capital Finance have gone bust (surprise, surprise). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328

The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?

Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?

TheAncientMariner said:

DavidL said:

London & Capital Finance have gone bust (surprise, surprise). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328

The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?

Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?

Not alone - but mistaken - assuming L&C were regulated by the FCA/ PRU then it is obvious that they failed in their regulatory duties. To have form, the FCA should fine the PRU (and vice-versa) substantial amounts for failure to have adequate systems and controls to monitor L&C. The FSCS is there specifically as a 'backstop' should the FCA fail in their duty.

I am not suggesting that the FCA have not been incompetent. Of course they have. But the poor me moaning sticks in my throat.

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

CD13 said:

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.
.. snip..
The Remain voters among us were pleased, felt a mixture of guilt and relief, but accepted there would be understandable anger. It's a part of growing up - the realisation that the world isn't as you thought it was.. Democracy is fine, as long as it's controlled. Certain things are not allowed.

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.

Thank you for volunteering.

I tust you won't be using your vote in future?

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

CD13 said:

I had an interesting meeting last week with the old gits I drink with. We meet up sporadically to put the world to rights but one of the group reminded us about the vote we'd taken about 18 months ago. Despite being evenly split on Brexit, we'd decided by five to one that Brexit would never really happen anyway.

Why? because the MPs didn't want it to happen and therefore it wouldn't. There might be a form of BINO where we'd continue to pay money, have no input into decisions, follow the rules and call it Brexit, but it wouldn't be Leave. We're all over sixty and naturally cynical so that probably explains it, but the sole dissenter then has now made it unanimous.

.. snip..

We tend to have amicable arguments only about politics. MPs lie, good politicians do it with an air of sincerity. That's life. Raging against the dying of the light assumes there was light to begin with.

The mistake was allowing 'old gits' to have a vote in the first place. It's the future we're talking about so leave the decision to those who it'll affect.

Thank you for volunteering.

I tust you won't be using your vote in future?

On Guido there is a note about Lib Dems changing a referendum decision because the youngsters voted against it. https://order-order.com/2019/03/07/lib-dems-reverse-referendum-result-old-people-voted-way-wanted/

DavidL said:

London & Capital Finance have gone bust (surprise, surprise). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328

The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?

Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?

I note that a Mr Careless is involved in this company.

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1104296871206498304

Rat Eyes certainly wants it badly enough which is the first and most important qualification. He was a remainer and is now obviously lying about changing his mind. Will that be sufficient for the largely senescent tory membership? He's certainly more of a value bet than Raabocop or The Saj.

My wallet would be very happy if Hunt takes the crown.

Not convinced though that anyone can beat Boris if he makes last two, so it is down to moderate MPs to engineer things if they want anyone but Boris.

I'm green on Hunt but he seems to have confirmed he is a bit of a lightweight with his posturing over newly-recruited British ambassador to the Iranian prison system, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which fits with Hunt's earlier Eurosausage disputes with junior hospital doctors and the BBC over The Apprentice. It is a shame because soon after Hunt's appointment, Iran did seem to be softening over Zaghari-Ratcliffe so if Hunt can spring her, we might still be paid out.

rottenborough said:

DavidL said:

London & Capital Finance have gone bust (surprise, surprise). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328

The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?

Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?

I note that a Mr Careless is involved in this company.

Yes and I suspect that the administrator will be looking very carefully at the payments received by his company for a marketing campaign that was banned as misleading. Interesting name in the circumstances.

OT the Cheltenham weather forecast for the first two days features heavy rain and gales. If racing is called off we might have to watch Brexit instead. Sky currently has 7/4 soft and 10/1 heavy for the official going of the Supreme but dyor and remember sometimes the official going is wrong.

DavidL said:

London & Capital Finance have gone bust (surprise, surprise). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47454328

The BBC story is, of course, all about the "victims" who apparently didn't realise that a fixed rate return of 8% on an ISA just might involve some risk. They may not have known that the company that ran the advertising campaign was getting 25% commission on the money raised (making the returns required up to 44% according to the Administrator) but did they really think that was possible?

Am I alone in thinking that these people have been both greedy and stupid and that it is utterly hypocritical to now seek to blame a regulator for them being both?

No, regulators should regulate because otherwise the system is even more rigged in favour of the sophisticated investor, and those wealthy enough to employ top advisors. We already have a system where global banks get more protection than the saver in the street, and the banks really are supposed to know what they are doing.