Guest MattP Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 Henry Bolton new UKIP leader - even I've never heard of him. Was a 50/1 outsider this morning, can't help but think AMW won and this is a stitch up.
Guest MattP Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 4 minutes ago, MattP said: Henry Bolton new UKIP leader - even I've never heard of him. Was a 50/1 outsider this morning, can't help but think AMW won and this is a stitch up. No idea how he slipped through the net, seems better qualified than all the rest put together. The 54-year-old international security expert is a former British Army officer, Thames Valley police officer and UN Governor who was awarded an OBE in 2013 for services to international security and stabilisation. Married with three children and living in Folkestone, his wife Tatiana Smurova-Bolton, gave birth to their second child on a high-speed train at St Pancras station. His Ukip leader nomination referee was former leader Nigel Farage and he was endorsed by Mike Hookem, James Carver, Jill Seymour and Ray Finch. In his role as an international security expert, he has advised the Home Office, the United Nations and the European Union (EU). He has worked as a mediator for the UN and chief planner for the EU’s European Security and Defence missions around the world.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 3 hours ago, SMX11 said: Because the government makes a mess of almost everything? Certainly the current government does
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 2 hours ago, Buce said: Sigh. Whoever invents a way to slap someone over the internet is going to make a fortune. I presume you're talking about Foxin_mad. Reading his posts on politics is the equivalant of asking justin bieber to explain mozart's compositions. If Justin Bieber believed that Mozart had inserted mind control into his music to bring down western civilisation.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 2 hours ago, MattP said: If you want too, try everything once in life Buce. Now run along you anonymous little troll. Foxin! Webbo! Here is definate evidence of every single right winger always being unspeakably mean to those they don't agree with. I'm not fussed though matt tbf.
Buce Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 1 minute ago, toddybad said: I presume you're talking about Foxin_mad. Reading his posts on politics is the equivalant of asking justin bieber to explain mozart's compositions. If Justin Bieber believed that Mozart had inserted mind control into his music to bring down western civilisation. I know I shouldn't bite, but he is the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's maddeningly frustrating.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 This is for the tories. Exactly what I'm talking about. The need for a new approach which needs to consider ideas outside the tory safety zone like increased regulation or state intervention. Tories risk permanent loss of youth vote, says Willetts https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/tories-risk-permament-loss-of-youth-vote-says-willetts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Innovindil Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 5 hours ago, Buce said: You're an intelligent guy, Toddy - how have you not worked out that he's a troll? 14 minutes ago, toddybad said: Foxin! Webbo! Here is definate evidence of every single right winger always being unspeakably mean to those they don't agree with. I'm not fussed though matt tbf. The hypocrisy.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 Where is webbo anyway? Hasn't been on for a while has he?
Buce Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 23 minutes ago, toddybad said: Where is webbo anyway? Hasn't been on for a while has he? On holiday in Salou.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 56 minutes ago, toddybad said: This is for the tories. Exactly what I'm talking about. The need for a new approach which needs to consider ideas outside the tory safety zone like increased regulation or state intervention. Tories risk permanent loss of youth vote, says Willetts https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/29/tories-risk-permament-loss-of-youth-vote-says-willetts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Well housing seems to be an issue as is shown in that article but it's probably the least free market in the UK outside of healthcare and (possibly) education. 23 minutes ago, toddybad said: Where is webbo anyway? Hasn't been on for a while has he? Probably as fed up with the utter nonsense from those that have managed to monopolise the place. Bring back Alf I say. No he actually mentioned he had poor internet connection on one of the quizzes.
katieakita Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 Did someone say Post Office!!! the Post Office is still owned by HMG, now if your talking Royal Mail and a Post Bank why not, the French post bank model which currently makes around £1 billion a year profit. As for the government owned Post Office thanks to the Governments failure to deal with the failings of its management and the empty promises of the then PM David Cameron to resolve claims of wrongdoing the taxpayer and it will be us bailing them out faces a GLO running into hundreds of millions of pounds. Whatever your political views the failure of HMG and the other political parties to bring Post Office Ltd to account is a disgrace.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 39 minutes ago, KingGTF said: Well housing seems to be an issue as is shown in that article but it's probably the least free market in the UK outside of healthcare and (possibly) education. Probably as fed up with the utter nonsense from those that have managed to monopolise the place. Bring back Alf I say. No he actually mentioned he had poor internet connection on one of the quizzes. Can i ask king - on your economics course they obviously cover a range of stuff which has led you to be very pro free markets. What other theories or systems are covered and are positive arguments made for any other system? I'm intrigued. If economics is a science then there should be a whole bunch of alternatives being considered objectively.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: Can i ask king - on your economics course they obviously cover a range of stuff which has led you to be very pro free markets. What other theories or systems are covered and are positive arguments made for any other system? I'm intrigued. If economics is a science then there should be a whole bunch of alternatives being considered objectively. Studying Econ, or should I just say academic Econ, is a whole lot different to discussing it in its politics form which is what most people know it as. Or it's even different to how you might read about it 'Freakonomics' or 'The Undercover Economist'. Pure-form Econ is only interested in efficiency and cares little for qualitative judgements. It's basically, look at, learn, manipulate, and apply models. It's all just models. And it doesn't really mean much to the everyday person(see attached for a simple example). I don't think people understand what Econ is as an academic field, they just see the intersection with politics (because the state is an economic actor) and assume that to be economics. Think of it like this. Economists perform an empirical study on whether extending the time you can receive unemployment benefits increases length of time in unemployment. One way to study this might be to compare places where it has been extended to places where it hasn't. The answer turns out that you can offer them for an extra 10 weeks and it only leads to 1 week extra of unemployment. This is the same as scientists performing some kind of health trial. It's then up to the theorists and policy makers to decide what to do with the information. So that's effectively what I do in making my mind up to be pro the free market, as many people I know are. Maybe that's similar to climate scientists (the informed) telling us all about climate change but the general population(the uninformed) being more likely to deny its existence. Basically the intersection of politics, philosophy, and economics (the everyday thinking of it) is quite different to Econ as an academic subject.
Guest Posted 29 September 2017 Posted 29 September 2017 8 minutes ago, KingGTF said: Studying Econ, or should I just say academic Econ, is a whole lot different to discussing it in its politics form which is what most people know it as. Or it's even different to how you might read about it 'Freakonomics' or 'The Undercover Economist'. Pure-form Econ is only interested in efficiency and cares little for qualitative judgements. It's basically, look at, learn, manipulate, and apply models. It's all just models. And it doesn't really mean much to the everyday person(see attached for a simple example). I don't think people understand what Econ is as an academic field, they just see the intersection with politics (because the state is an economic actor) and assume that to be economics. Think of it like this. Economists perform an empirical study on whether extending the time you can receive unemployment benefits increases length of time in unemployment. One way to study this might be to compare places where it has been extended to places where it hasn't. The answer turns out that you can offer them for an extra 10 weeks and it only leads to 1 week extra of unemployment. This is the same as scientists performing some kind of health trial. It's then up to the theorists and policy makers to decide what to do with the information. So that's effectively what I do in making my mind up to be pro the free market, as many people I know are. Maybe that's similar to climate scientists (the informed) telling us all about climate change but the general population(the uninformed) being more likely to deny its existence. Basically the intersection of politics, philosophy, and economics (the everyday thinking of it) is quite different to Econ as an academic subject. I've got a degree in physics so the maths isn't a problem (well, it wasn't then anyway!)but does make me think it's probably quite boring I presume that your example of employment benefits is one that's been simplified for explanation purposes. So what empirical data and tests have convinced you of the power of free markets? Whenever you've discussed the subject you've talked of being minded to believe that zero regulation entirely free markets would be the best. By best do you simply mean most efficient? And what do you mean by efficiency? So when it comes to regulated markets, or nationalised industries, how far does the research go - by which I mean, does it not only consider the impact upon the system itself but also look at benefits and costs elsewhere in the economy? I only ask this as you so often see political decisions which seem to have benefits in one area - for example if you take unemployment benefit again, if you were to reduce the payable period of the benefit you would find cost savings but how do you quantify the likely knock on costs for the NHS for impaired mental and physical health? In terms of its merits as a science, how repeatable are results? In physics, as you might imagine, experiments are effected by almost everything - particularly those at quantum level where even observing the experiment affects it - so how does this relate to economics? I suppose I'm interested in how economics has led you to believe in deregulated free markets when the evidence I observe (through my tinted lenses) is multiple failures caused by deregulation. It may be that we can never agree on this but I am interested to understand HOW you've come to your view.
katieakita Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 16 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: No it would not be more cost effective. Currently it is run to make a profit. Under Labour it would be run at the whim of the Unions, when a pay rise is demanded there would be strikes, if an employee was sacked there would be strikes, if they thought conditions were unfair there would be strikes. Post would never be delivered and the costs of keeping up with constant demands for pay rises would cost billions. Its not unhinged and uninformed, Corbyn and McDonnell have both admitted that they are socialists and that they believe the teaching of Marx. This is their own admission, I think its those leaning to Labour that seem to be misinformed!! https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/85762/jeremy-corbyn-backs-john-mcdonnell Oh dear oh dear, Foxin_mad sadly like most of the country you really know very little about Royal Mail and the Post Office. When Royal Mail lost its monopoly many European postal firms moved in, they didn't fancy delivering to every house in the UK so cherry picked the profitable ones and went whinging to the regulator to gain access to Royal Mails network and infrastructure to get them to deliver for them to places that were not viable to them. The regulator allowed this forcing the tax payer owned Royal Mail to deliver European rivals post at a financial loss. A considerable loss that used to be stated at around £180 million a year, now to sweeten the loss the regulator allowed Royal Mail to knock the 2nd post of the day on the head, one year they allowed the price of a 1st class stamp to rise from 46p to 60p so the general public got to pay for the subsidy to other countries postal service providers. Other cost cutting measures have included later starts so your post lands in the afternoon or boxes only getting emptied once a day. Any clown can make Royal Mail profitable knock the 6 day a week delivery on the head certainly to remote areas, charge an appropriate fee to supply remote areas and don't deliver rivals post at a loss. By now the tax payers windfall from the sale of Royal Mail has just about gone £2.3 billion was wasted by the Post Office add the profits Royal Mail have made since privatisation and the costs the public will pay out correcting the Post Offices "errors" and the money raised has gone. Also don't forget the Royal Mail have some prime land holdings in many major Cities. At Mount Pleasant a 12 acre site they have just sold 2.5 acres for the best part of £200 million. The position of Postmaster General was a high ranking government position tasked with raising revenue for the treasury and in the cold, cold light of day the most successful Postmaster General of all time was a Mr Tony Benn yes that one. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/royal-mail-sells-mount-pleasant-site-for-193m/10022967.article As for the government owned Post Office Margot James Postal Minister recently allowed a £1 million pound payment for senior management as a bonus for reducing losses by £10 million. A FOIR and pressure by the Information commissioner made Post Office Ltd admit that by forcing Postmasters to change contracts they had avoided paying £11.3 million in National Insurance contributions to the treasury But according to the Post Office this is not avoidance it is a reduction. The fact that it goes completely against government policy seems to have been ignored by the current government. Sadly the general public are totally unaware of Post Office issues and the government are happy to keep it that way, expect Mrs May to a fanfare announce further funding from the taxpayer to the Post Office next week, bet she doesn't say most of it will go to cover this. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500257720/Group-litigation-against-Post-Office-being-prepared-in-Horizon-dispute 1
Guest Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 3 hours ago, katieakita said: Oh dear oh dear, Foxin_mad sadly like most of the country you really know very little about Royal Mail and the Post Office. When Royal Mail lost its monopoly many European postal firms moved in, they didn't fancy delivering to every house in the UK so cherry picked the profitable ones and went whinging to the regulator to gain access to Royal Mails network and infrastructure to get them to deliver for them to places that were not viable to them. The regulator allowed this forcing the tax payer owned Royal Mail to deliver European rivals post at a financial loss. A considerable loss that used to be stated at around £180 million a year, now to sweeten the loss the regulator allowed Royal Mail to knock the 2nd post of the day on the head, one year they allowed the price of a 1st class stamp to rise from 46p to 60p so the general public got to pay for the subsidy to other countries postal service providers. Other cost cutting measures have included later starts so your post lands in the afternoon or boxes only getting emptied once a day. Any clown can make Royal Mail profitable knock the 6 day a week delivery on the head certainly to remote areas, charge an appropriate fee to supply remote areas and don't deliver rivals post at a loss. By now the tax payers windfall from the sale of Royal Mail has just about gone £2.3 billion was wasted by the Post Office add the profits Royal Mail have made since privatisation and the costs the public will pay out correcting the Post Offices "errors" and the money raised has gone. Also don't forget the Royal Mail have some prime land holdings in many major Cities. At Mount Pleasant a 12 acre site they have just sold 2.5 acres for the best part of £200 million. The position of Postmaster General was a high ranking government position tasked with raising revenue for the treasury and in the cold, cold light of day the most successful Postmaster General of all time was a Mr Tony Benn yes that one. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/royal-mail-sells-mount-pleasant-site-for-193m/10022967.article As for the government owned Post Office Margot James Postal Minister recently allowed a £1 million pound payment for senior management as a bonus for reducing losses by £10 million. A FOIR and pressure by the Information commissioner made Post Office Ltd admit that by forcing Postmasters to change contracts they had avoided paying £11.3 million in National Insurance contributions to the treasury But according to the Post Office this is not avoidance it is a reduction. The fact that it goes completely against government policy seems to have been ignored by the current government. Sadly the general public are totally unaware of Post Office issues and the government are happy to keep it that way, expect Mrs May to a fanfare announce further funding from the taxpayer to the Post Office next week, bet she doesn't say most of it will go to cover this. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500257720/Group-litigation-against-Post-Office-being-prepared-in-Horizon-dispute Don't expect.a response from fox. He only has a bile setting so isn't capable of discussing a detailed point that might affect his pre-programmed opinions
David Guiza Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 The real life Ben Swain strikes again - still such an inspired choice for foreign secretary https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple 1
Guest MattP Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 11 minutes ago, David Guiza said: The real life Ben Swain strikes again - still such an inspired choice for foreign secretary https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/boris-johnson-caught-on-camera-reciting-kipling-in-myanmar-temple What a silly thing to get upset about though. Boris has done his job with these articles mind, back at the top of the Tory members poll now for next leader.
Guest Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 5 minutes ago, MattP said: What a silly thing to get upset about though. Boris has done his job with these articles mind, back at the top of the Tory members poll now for next leader. Struggling to care I must admit. You don't need to find reasons to explain calling Boris a hopeless Foreign Secretary!
Guest MattP Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Struggling to care I must admit. You don't need to find reasons to explain calling Boris a hopeless Foreign Secretary! Exactly, plenty to go at without resorting to fake outrage.
Guest Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 58 minutes ago, MattP said: Exactly, plenty to go at without resorting to fake outrage. I only wish you could stick to this line when it comes to labour's alleged 'anti-semetism'.
Guest MattP Posted 30 September 2017 Posted 30 September 2017 21 minutes ago, toddybad said: I only wish you could stick to this line when it comes to labour's alleged 'anti-semetism'. It's Labour's own MP's and members often saying this, denying it isn't going to make it go away.
Recommended Posts