Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Voll Blau]

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

£200 to an already rich wealthy man, I am sure it could be a lot more reasonable price than that 'for the people'. Its only accessible to an elite group of people. £200 is a lot of money to the 'many'

 

People shouldn't be so disgusting, expecting someone else to do it is exactly what is wrong with the world, if they eat chips or drink a bottle put it in the ****ing bin its not hard! I suppose its ok to throw litter out of a car window because the council will clean it up?!

 

This event is an absolute symbolisation of the hypocrisy of the left, there are thousands of tents and items of clothing left every year, some which could provide shelter for refugees.

 

The technology point is more along the lines the left phone of choice an iPhone is provided by one of the biggest tax avoiding firms globally, it the major social network avoid paying tax as does Starbucks......whooosh

 

I have no problem with it........its just the irony of it all.

 

Fvcking hell pal, you go on like people were paying to spend a day on a yacht at the Monaco Grand Prix.

 

Firstly, no one is attending Glastonbury because of their politics, or because Jeremy Corbyn was going to introduce Run The Jewels - they're there because they're music fans. In fact, it's been a running joke for a few years that it's full of Tory voters now (I stress that part is a joke by the way).

 

Secondly, you seem to think paying £200 for a holiday (which is what it is) is unreasonable, and that anyone who does so is clearly out of touch. It isn't. And I believe there was the option for people to pay it off in installments, which seems more than fair and reasonable for anyone struggling to afford a holiday. Plus, given the demand for tickets and all the acts on offer, the organisers could charge a hell of a lot more.

 

No, it's not nice that people leave litter. That said, as I explained, the fields used aren't left as wasteland after these types of festivals. The festival is organised by a working dairy farmer. He wouldn't do it, and Greenpeace certainly wouldn't endorse it, if there were any doubts about the long-term environmental impact on the area.

 

Didn't realise the iPhone was the "left's phone of choice" by the way. It's *almost* like you've just blindly made that assumption to suit your point.

Edited 26 June 2017 by Voll Blau

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

DUP found the magic money tree and our Arlene is currently pulping it up for heating pellets for her latest cash for ash scheme heh

It's 500 million extra isn't it? (Admit I've not read the full document yet) - It's a rounding error in the terms of our national spending.

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Do the DUP even have any terriost links or is it a leftie attempt to stir shit after all the things about JC being a IRA sympathisers?

 

Only tenuous links. They have no formal links to the main Loyalist terror groups (UVF/UDA) in the way that Sinn Fein had/has links to the IRA.

 

They've tried to set up their own loyalist militia in the past, but they weren't serious players. The UDA & UVF had/have, respectively, their own political wings (PUP still exists for UVF).

 

Some DUP politicians have a few dodgy past connections and/or enjoy friendly communications, shall we say, with people with a Loyalist terror background.

Overall, they're a bunch of reactionary bigots (who'll probably limit their reactionary bigotry to N. Ireland, not GB) but have only superficial Loyalist terror links, I think.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

 

OMG a whole two hundred pounds!!!! Hypocrites!!!

 

That £200, which people can save up for over a period of months, covers three days' worth of music and hundreds of different acts, a place to stay, and paying the cleaners (newsflash pal - it's about the biggest music festival in the world, not everyone there will be a tree-hugging peacenik. Shit will get left around, but the organisers know how to deal with it).

 

Seriously, the way some people who rave on about this kind of stuff whinge - it's like they don't think anyone left-leaning should be allowed to have a nice time at almost anything.

 

Also, how dare people keep up to date with current technology by paying for it with money which, and I can't stress this enough, can be saved up for over an extended period of time.

Festivals have been hijacked by Hooray Henries and Henriettas years ago.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought he went down well with the crowd as he was pro-hunting?

 

Anyway, I can't help but like the guy, his real first name is the same as one of my favourite ever Kings.

 

 re. hunting, and....

 re. Athelstan

 

Why is Athelstan one of your favourite kings?

A post-Viking, pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon king, as I recall, but I can remember nothing about him.

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's 500 million extra isn't it? (Admit I've not read the full document yet) - It's a rounding error in the terms of our national spending.

And they had to ditch scrapping of triple lock and winter fuel in order to do the deal which punches a black hole in the Tories spending plans. Plus there is confusion on the Barnett formula for other devolved Parliaments some say it's don't apply but Scottish Tories are saying it should

Edited 26 June 2017 by Sharpe's Fox

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 re. hunting, and....

 re. Athelstan

 

Why is Athelstan one of your favourite kings?

A post-Viking, pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon king, as I recall, but I can remember nothing about him.

Being brutally honest, this is very embarrassing but I can barely remember why, when I first read the history of our early kings it was Alfred the Great, Athelstan and Ethelred the Unready that stuck as my favourites, you've given me an excuse to whip out my David Starkey monarchy DVD's though tonight. (On a quick wiki of him it appears he invaded the kingdom of Strathclyde for little reason, maybe that's it ) It was Eadred who was the King that eventually united England, but I think it was Athelstan than was the leader who put in the place the laws and conquest that allowed it to be.

 

My first child will have the indignity of either being called Athelstan or Ethelred somewhere in the name. (written with an old English AE of course)

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

And they had to ditch scrapping of triple lock and winter fuel in order to do the deal which punches a black hole in the Tories spending plans. Plus there is confusion on the Barnett formula for other devolved Parliaments some say it's don't apply but Scottish Tories are saying it should

I think the Tories will be delighted to get out of that, I don't think they realised just how unpopular that would have been.

 

As I've said the Tories should start spending now anyway, likely they'll lose next time around why be so tight with the purse when someone else will just come in and spend, given the way the young voted they shouldn't have any guilt anymore in leaving them with debt.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Some covert footage of the DUP and Tories celebrating their new deal.

[Buce]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 re. hunting, and....

 re. Athelstan

 

Why is Athelstan one of your favourite kings?

A post-Viking, pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon king, as I recall, but I can remember nothing about him.

 

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

Being brutally honest, this is very embarrassing but I can barely remember why, when I first read the history of our early kings it was Alfred the Great, Athelstan and Ethelred the Unready that stuck as my favourites, you've given me an excuse to whip out my David Starkey monarchy DVD's though tonight. (On a quick wiki of him it appears he invaded the kingdom of Strathclyde for little reason, maybe that's it ) It was Eadred who was the King that eventually united England, but I think it was Athelstan than was the leader who put in the place the laws and conquest that allowed it to be.

 

My first child will have the indignity of either being called Athelstan or Ethelred somewhere in the name. (written with an old English AE of course)

 

Coincidentally, I have recently been reading about this period of history (fascinating as it is) - I'd have thought that the fact that modern historians regard him as the first King of England may have had some bearing on Matt's favouritism.

[Buce]

41 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's 500 million extra isn't it? (Admit I've not read the full document yet) - It's a rounding error in the terms of our national spending.

 

It's an extra 1 billion in funding.

[EnderbyFox]

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, Buce said:

It's an extra 1 billion in funding.

Cheers.

 

Good day for the people of Northern Ireland then, although as I say, in the grand scheme of things it's isn't that much.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

Cheers.

 

Good day for the people of Northern Ireland then, although as I say, in the grand scheme of things it's isn't that much.

 

You're welcome.

 

I'm not sure the Sweaties and the Taffies will see it that way.

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, MattP said:

Being brutally honest, this is very embarrassing but I can barely remember why, when I first read the history of our early kings it was Alfred the Great, Athelstan and Ethelred the Unready that stuck as my favourites, you've given me an excuse to whip out my David Starkey monarchy DVD's though tonight. (On a quick wiki of him it appears he invaded the kingdom of Strathclyde for little reason, maybe that's it ) It was Eadred who was the King that eventually united England, but I think it was Athelstan than was the leader who put in the place the laws and conquest that allowed it to be.

 

My first child will have the indignity of either being called Athelstan or Ethelred somewhere in the name. (written with an old English AE of course)

 

I got curious and had a quick look at his Wiki entry as I remembered him as a significant king, too, but couldn't remember why. Apparently, modern historians view him as the first King of England and one of the greatest.

As you say, he seems to have been presided over a lot of lasting legislation, the centralisation of the nation, but also extensive international relations and the foundation of monasteries as centres of learning. Sounds to have been one of the better monarchs.

 

When I was about 11, I could recite the reigns and family connections of all the Kings and Queens of England from Egbert to the present day (I was a weird child). Unfortunately, age and a long drinking career have erased some of the memory.

 

If I'm still around, in about 15 years time I'll look out with trepidation for a new Foxes Talk poster named AethelstanP.... 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

You're welcome.

 

I'm not sure the Sweaties and the Taffies will see it that way.

They only have to sit tight, the next election will probably proiduce another hung pariliament with Labour as the largest party, they'll get their blood money when they need the support of the SNP and Plaid.

Edited 26 June 2017 by MattP
50 pieces of silver not a good comparison

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Never would have said this about him as an MP, but as an editor... I'm beginning to like George Osborne!

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Never would have said this about him as an MP, but as an editor... I'm beginning to like George Osborne!

 

He's certainly getting plenty of vengeance in for May sacking him.......not sure I approve of newspapers being used for personal vendettas in that way, even though I've no time for May.

[l444ry]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

You see I would have no problem at all with them showing that picture as it's one of total fact. That accompanied by "Jeremy Corbyn addresses the crowd at Glastonbury" would be absolutely fine. Not an issue.

 

I think you have misunderstood why people got the arse with it, it's the BBC's job to report fact, it's not their job to make him sound great by "promoting" him by putting a picture of him alongside a comment of something like, "when you've nailed the chorus" - that's what was wrong.

 

Except it's not fake news it is?

 

EU law does provide an extra blanket of protection against deportation as if a criminal has lived in Britain for five years it requires "serious grounds" on public security to remove them, Non-EU citizens are considered for deportation after just one year and can be whatever the crime.

 

Here are a couple examples for you, I'm sure we have many more.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12306605 - Theresa Rafacz - Mr Justice Blake (most senior immigration judge) says no deportation as the crime did not meet the threshold of seriousness under EU law.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/31/humanrights.immigrationpolicy

 

Learco Chindamo, the killer of Phillip Lawrence,

 

 

Don't take my word for it Matt. Here it is from the horse's mouth Amber Rudd.

http://news.sky.com/story/eu-criminals-facing-deportation-and-uk-ban-for-up-to-10-years-10605190

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Fvcking hell pal, you go on like people were paying to spend a day on a yacht at the Monaco Grand Prix.

 

Firstly, no one is attending Glastonbury because of their politics, or because Jeremy Corbyn was going to introduce Run The Jewels - they're there because they're music fans. In fact, it's been a running joke for a few years that it's full of Tory voters now (I stress that part is a joke by the way).

 

Secondly, you seem to think paying £200 for a holiday (which is what it is) is unreasonable, and that anyone who does so is clearly out of touch. It isn't. And I believe there was the option for people to pay it off in installments, which seems more than fair and reasonable for anyone struggling to afford a holiday. Plus, given the demand for tickets and all the acts on offer, the organisers could charge a hell of a lot more.

 

No, it's not nice that people leave litter. That said, as I explained, the fields used aren't left as wasteland after these types of festivals. The festival is organised by a working dairy farmer. He wouldn't do it, and Greenpeace certainly wouldn't endorse it, if there were any doubts about the long-term environmental impact on the area.

 

Didn't realise the iPhone was the "left's phone of choice" by the way. It's *almost* like you've just blindly made that assumption to suit your point.

Its just highlighting the irony......

 

What's the problems with people paying to spend a day on a yacht at the Monaco Grand Prix? If that's how they choose to spend their money so be it IMO free world.

 

I have absolutely no problems with any of this apart from the litter.

 

I just wish people would accept that they are having a bit of excess which is fine and if its ok for them to do it, why do they get so uppity when others do it within their means? If it was a Tory banker doing it they would be holding up Socialist Worker placards saying 'Kill the Tory Banker Scum'!

 

Its all the fake outrage from the left that annoys me, pretending they care and being high and mighty when actually they are exactly the same. People are all essentially the same. Human nature is to provide the best life for themselves.

 

Whichever way you look at it this is an event outside the price range of a lot of people, its a lot of money to gain access to a field.

 

iPhones and Macbooks are owned by the likes of Lilly Allen. Again I could give a flying feck as I believe in a free market, but people like Lilly like to lecture about morals without researching the products they choose to spend their millions on.

 

Its more about the point of all this. The irony is McDonnell and Corbyn choose to visit an event which people have paid £200 to get into yet they would probably criticise Tories for doing the same.....odd

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

 

3 hours ago, Brizzle Fox said:

You do know that any tents left that are still serviceable do get recycled to local or African aid charities, so not all bad!

Great if that is true I have never heard that.

 

 

2 hours ago, l444ry said:

It's been reported that Michael Eavis takes £60,000 for running Glastonbury and donates all profits to charity. Maybe that's why people like the fella. 

If true then great, again I have never heard that.

[davieG]

 

 

@Innovindil

 

 

Business confidence has jumped to an 18-month high, but companies are having trouble recruiting skilled workers, according to a survey.

The Lloyds Bank Business in Britain report's confidence index rose to 24% - double the level immediately following the EU referendum last year.

The index is a measure of expected sales, orders and profits.

A separate survey by the British Chambers of Commerce forecast weak economic growth for the next few years.

Outlook 'mixed'

The Lloyds Bank report surveyed the views of 1,500 UK companies in May, after the general election was called.

The average for the confidence index in the 25 years the report has been compiled is 23%.

The net balance of companies that said they had found it difficult to find skilled labour in the past six months hit a 10-year high of 52%.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

 

@Innovindil

 

Business confidence has jumped to an 18-month high, but companies are having trouble recruiting skilled workers, according to a survey.

The Lloyds Bank Business in Britain report's confidence index rose to 24% - double the level immediately following the EU referendum last year.

The index is a measure of expected sales, orders and profits.

A separate survey by the British Chambers of Commerce forecast weak economic growth for the next few years.

Outlook 'mixed'

The Lloyds Bank report surveyed the views of 1,500 UK companies in May, after the general election was called.

The average for the confidence index in the 25 years the report has been compiled is 23%.

The net balance of companies that said they had found it difficult to find skilled labour in the past six months hit a 10-year high of 52%.

They'll have to start training their own people then.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Probably at least in part because unemployment is also at a record low. Hopefully the combined effect will be that wages finally go up in real terms as businesses have to compete with one another to draw from the limited available talent pool.

 

 

 

Couple of asides..

 

When will May finally do the right thing and piss off?

 

 

And..

Does anybody actually care about the environment anymore or have they already quietly gone and fixed that global warming thing people used to talk about?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 26 June 2017 by BlueBrett

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its just highlighting the irony......

 

What's the problems with people paying to spend a day on a yacht at the Monaco Grand Prix? If that's how they choose to spend their money so be it IMO free world.

 

I have absolutely no problems with any of this apart from the litter.

 

I just wish people would accept that they are having a bit of excess which is fine and if its ok for them to do it, why do they get so uppity when others do it within their means? If it was a Tory banker doing it they would be holding up Socialist Worker placards saying 'Kill the Tory Banker Scum'!

 

Its all the fake outrage from the left that annoys me, pretending they care and being high and mighty when actually they are exactly the same. People are all essentially the same. Human nature is to provide the best life for themselves.

 

Whichever way you look at it this is an event outside the price range of a lot of people, its a lot of money to gain access to a field.

 

iPhones and Macbooks are owned by the likes of Lilly Allen. Again I could give a flying feck as I believe in a free market, but people like Lilly like to lecture about morals without researching the products they choose to spend their millions on.

 

Its more about the point of all this. The irony is McDonnell and Corbyn choose to visit an event which people have paid £200 to get into yet they would probably criticise Tories for doing the same.....odd

 

£200 is a lot of money to access a field, you're right. That's not what they were paying for though is it? I've seen plenty trying to claim it's hypocrisy for Corbyn to address an event where people were "paying £200 to watch Katy Perry" too. Again, no they weren't.

 

And you're using the consumer habits and alleged moral hypocrisy of one individual to generalise about tens of thousands of people. Was Lilly Allen even there this year? Even if she was, who gives a fvck.

 

Let's face it, if Corbyn hadn't turned up you wouldn't be going on these daft rants about the crowd's alleged demographics/hypocrisy/political stance/whatever because it wouldn't have even entered your consciousness.

 

Nobody was "pretending they care and being high and mighty" at that festival. They were just enjoying the music, which was why they were there. End of.