Brew
-
Content Count
6,581 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
85
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Brew
-
-
I didn't say they deliberately kept it quiet
I didn't say the were somewhat selective in circulating information
I didn't the whole thing was driven by egotistm and ambition
The promises they make are so far only theoretical and no doubt will have good excuses when they fail to appear.
They claim the decision is following on from the success of previous devolutions, except there are none so far at local level and the devolution of Scotland, Wales And Northern Ireland are open to argument at best.
Derby claim new powers will be granted to mayors, I interpret that as able to raise local taxes as and when they see fit, and make controversial decisions without too much opposition. ULEZ...20mph...
Devolution in Wales was defeated with an 80% rejection, it came to pass years later with a supposed 0.3% majority vote in favour. Given the example of Notts and Derby can we trust the result?
Three quotes from The Institute for Government report:
Devolution is an expensive luxury in terms of the costs of setting up and running the devolved bodies:
Questions still remain about whether devolution will lead to the break up of Britain.
All the same, those who hoped that devolution would energise, inform and unite the policy makers of the UK must surely be disappointed. The picture is more one of local divergence.
To be fair there are some authors who have claimed there are benefits, mainly for Wales and mainly from an ex CEO and editor of Prospect, a left wing periodical.
Much of the report (it's very long), concerns the four countries and seem to indicate Blairs 'New Labour and 'New Politics' have had mixed results. To my mind it simply means the more things change the more they stay as they are, they just have different names and we have less of a say.
-
BK I can't even begin to imagine how traumatic that is.
-
An example of how politicians mislead without lying.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire are to amalgamate into one big authorly at a cost of over £1.1 billion.
According to the report put out by the council, after consultation over 53% agreed, yet none I've ever spoken to has any idea it was even suggested never mind actually happening. So how?
A statement from the council:-
The majority backed the proposals: (note the plural)
53% agreed with the proposals for transport, compared to 35% disagreeing.
52% agreed with the proposals for skills, compared to 32% disagreeing.
51% agreed with the proposals for reducing carbon and improving the environment, compared to 33% disagreeing.
51% agreed with the proposals for public health, compared to 33% disagreeing.
Note the questions, It does not actually ask if anyone wanted an extra layer of authority, a super council over the four that exist now, and the attendant costs.
It extolls the possible virtues of various aspects of such a setup but does not actually ask if people agreed with the amalgamation.
Out of 2.2 million residents only 4869 responded, that's 0.22% - less than one quarter of one percent.
Put another way the biggest percentage (for transport, but doesn't say what) is 53%. That's only 2580 - out of 2,200,000 (0.13%)
To claim a majority voted in favour is true, it's not a lie - but is it really the truth?
-
1
-
-
Bad enough losing close relatives but at such a young age is truly awful...
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Oztalgian said:
It is way past time that laws are put in place to have "truth in politics" to prevent blatant lies being told particularly in the run up to elections.
How would we police it? They will simply turn and say it's (whatever the subject is), a dynamic situation and it was, or they believed it to be true, at the time of the telling.
The problem is people don't listen or give proper consideration to what politicians say, or the implications.
Most people will readily agree they have no interest in politics or current affairs.
Thatcher is famous for claiming to give people more choice. What she meant was we're no loner providing a service and you are free to choose to pay for it privately or go without. Politicians rarely lie they obfuscate, present details in ways that can be difficult to understand. smoke and mirrors. Alternatively they simply refused to say anything.
The recently bankrupt Nottingham City Council yesterday refused to say where £5 million, granted by the government, and designated for the homeless in the city has gone. Commercial sensitivity they claim which is absolute BS. What is sensitive about providing a service to the homeless. Is it true? if they say nothing at all are they lying?
On matters of national security I can accept some things should not be in the public domain, but a council? what are they doing that we are not allowed to know about?
Your post demonstrates some poor decisions, incompetence and maybe some lies but how can you tell until after the fact?
-
Tonight no doubt you'll be thinking of reasons why you absolutely must have and will die without something costing oodles of dosh, but you're a hopeless case so enjoy...
-
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:
It is debateable whether Labour live up to the label they are constantly saddled with by the UK print media.
From the Guardian.
"The frightening thing is not that Tories are paraded as more fiscally competent. It’s that even Labour believes it"
Starmer says cancel 28 billion green plan, Raynor say it's still on but a bit modified. Left hand right hand?
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:No. It's a reasonable electoral strategy. WHATEVER labour propose in terms of specifics, will attract the same bile and it's clear from recent election results that Labour don't need to expose themselves to that.
OTOH, the Tories came in promising to:
-Halt illegal immigration. Fail.
-Get Brexit dun. Fail
-Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail
-Fix Adult Social Care. Fail, etc.,. etc..
After 14 years, trying to blame everything on Covid is frankly pathetic.
Actually Lets is right, if they had a credible plan they'd shout if from the rooftops. To say they are afraid of what those nasty journalists will say is ridiculous and I for one don't want a government that keeps secrets until after they're in power.
Halt illegal immigration. Fail. but with the help of Labour who want to keep twisting the thorn in Sunaks side
Get Brexit dun. Fail
Implement Brixit 'benefits' Fail
did both... just not in a way anyone wanted.
Fix Adult Social Care. Fail,
It was Labour who abolished the poor laws and made local authorities responsible for social care, and it was Labour who introduced care in the community due to the rising costs.
The poor laws provided for each parish to levy for support of the sick and the lame. The howls now about poor social care would be drowned out by the howls of protest should they be reintroduced. The social care problem is not new.
In a country with an aging population this will be a never ending saga regardless of government, but granted the Tories could do better.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:don't buy ANY newspaper. Only the Guardian has anything approaching a neutral stance based on facts and internationally acknowledged as such. It's not owned by big business, or foreigners. A look at the headlines on display in the local newsagent is enough to put me off. I don't doubt that there is criticism of govt. within the pages of most/all newspapers, but that is not the overt stance suggested by their headlines, or adopted by broadcast media.
Your comment about the Socialist Worker, or the Morning Star, or whatever you meant..is unnecessary and borderline Ad Hom. You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left.
Lets be real the Guardian is about as neutral as Johnson and for any left leaning reader it's more like a mutual admiration society.
Garnering sufficient information from headlines on different publications to make an informed opinion is quite a trick Col but I'm afraid vague impressions don't usually tell the whole story.
Unless you're referring to Fox News or GB News I can't see any overt bias in the BBC or mainstream TV news, indeed Ofcom are quite keen on keeping it that way.
"You know full well that I have repeatedly defined my politics as Democratic and Centre Left."
It's a brave man that can analyse himself, if only we could ourselves as other see us...
-
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:
Irrelevant.
I'm talking about removing 'charitable' status. If Private schools cannot exist without that, plus the fees they charge. then why do they exist?
Why? What reason has any charity to exist?
In light of full disclosure both my children after infants were educated in the private sector. Why? various reasons but mainly because I could.
Schools have been given charitable status for what they do. The don't run a factory making widgets and profits.
Like other Charites they provide a service that benefits society as a whole. Charities exist because they feel the system is not good enough or is failing to satisfy a need. Help for Heroes, Cancer Research, MIND, Anthony Nolan, Great Ormand Street; the list goes on and on. Giving them charitable status is a way of providing help and support.
To deny such as The Macmillan Trust and the whole charity sector simply on the basis that Eton provides PMs you don't agree with is surprisingly petulant.
Most parents are not too bothered about a a rebate as you say, and in my case that's true, just as I now contribute to state education and council facilities but don't use them.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:There are also deeply ingrained perceptions in some quarters that the fact of having been to a Private school somehow means that someone is 'better' in some way.
And?
Are you're advocating we should all have the same opinions and world view?
I could ask why did you or anyone else go to a Grammar school? after all they were given a bigger slice of the pie and better resources. Are they not also seen as advantageous? Isn't there also a perception someone with a grammar school education are better in some way?
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:Well yes, Govt. is not and should not be above the Law, but it does ultimately make and alter the Law. It seems to have a distorted perception of priorities, having invested huge amounts of its own and Parliaments' time in pursuit of , for e.g., the Rwanda Bill.. i.e. effectively changing the Law, but very little on making sure that the Law is effective in bringing to book those responsible for Grenfell and other iniquities, or indeed preventing future repeats. As ever, the forces of self interest are quietly carrying on business as usual.
It 'seems', - means what you're saying is merely your perception and not evidence.
The Rwanda debacle is parliament and the legal system butting heads. Parliament, as it should, gave way to due process which is why it's taking so long and costs the legal aid system so much.
Prevent future repeats? like that's even going to happen. How times have we heard " it must never happen again"... didn't we fight a war to end all wars?
The Peter Apps quote is quite frankly meaningless.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:No. We have an admission by the Post Office that hundreds of people were wrongfully prosecuted and convicted, up to 20 years ago
Did they? is that what they said?
You think the Tories should have been aware of the fraudulent work and disregard if the rules at Grenfell, so by the same metric it puts Labour firmly in the frame for failing to see the Post Office fiasco.
Both ideas are clearly nonsense.
It may seem insensitive to say it but Grenfell and the Post Office must run their course and resist knee jerk reactions.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:The NeoCon comment is not a jibe, it's a fact. PFI originates from NeoCon ideology.
And Labour having no idea of their own took it to heart and ran with it. Trying to reassociate it to the Tory side is merely obfuscation.
It's true PFI contracts can be terminated with nothing more than political will, but...
PPP_terminations_policy_note.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
It's not so easy, or cheap.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:We all know Covid cost a fortune. The real question is around how effectively that money was spent, and where huge chunks of it actually went. Govt borrowing was rising before Covid.
Fact check. No it wasn't. Labour held borrowing reasonably steady until the '08 crash when it massively increased. The debt was then handed on the the Tories who kept it fairly stable and actually falling 2018/19 - until Covid.
The level of borrowing was pretty much forced on to both governments. Asking where the money went is another attempt to disparage the Tories and divert from the subject without recognising or acknowledging the the root cause.
5 hours ago, DJ360 said:Yep, and that 'other matter' consisted of destroying British manufacturing
I was merely pointing out you were wrong to claim she did not reduce inflation.
Simply because we feel she was the devil incarnate does not mean we should not be accurate
-
I ate golden syrup sandwiches growing up and I'm very familiar the logo and the motto. but only today have I learned the lion is dead!
-
I look at the online Morning Star on a semi-regular basis, they allow five free articles a month. I do not subscribe but it's occasionally interesting to see things from a different perspective
-
1
-
-
Not heard of Bonko before
-
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:
The likes of Eton College already supply us with a disproportionately high number of (mostly Right Wing) Politicians etc. Why should we subsidise them?
The vast majority if independents are not like Harrow, Eton or Roedean. they are quite small, Iona, Hollygirt etc with pupils in the ten, hundreds. Perhaps you could propose a rebate for the the cost of a place at state school that they forgo?
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:Do you not think that the manufacturers of the cladding hold the major responsibility? The stuff is clearly not fit for purpose and yet was sold to numerous developers and property owners. The manufacturers KNEW it wasn't suitable.
This I don't doubt and the ongoing investigation will, I hope, eventually bring those responsible to book, Did HMG take their eye of the ball? - no.
No matter what you legislate for or how draconian you make the laws someone will always looks for ways to circumvent the rules. there will always be corruption and criminal activity regardless of what flavour the government of the day.
They need holding account by the government? No! the law should take it's course without pressure from the executive. It's a fundamental principle of our democracy.
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:I don't know who's right, but this Pantomime does nothing for the victims.
Exactly, all we have at the moment is hearsay, rumour and conjecture, he said she said. Those affected have been treated abominably, but who do you want making decisions, the courts or civil servants whispering in dark corners?
PFI? There are 719 such agreements with a cost to the tax payer of over £300 Billion! one of which has seen the collapse of an NHS trust (South London), due to payments. It's also worth remembering the majority came about under labour. It's part of Blair/Brown legacy that is helping to cripple the NHS.
The jibe about neoCon is a bit of a worrabout.
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:don't hear the 'meedja' complaining about the huge increase in UK debt under the Tories.
Perhaps because they recognise vast amount covid cost, and is sill costing, this country:
From the treasury.
The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.
Even Labour are not making that much fuss about it knowing full well they will inherit it.
One last point;
Thatcher inherited 0ver 17% inflation, with two years had it down to single figures - how is another matter.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
They have systematically enabled 'legalised theft',
An oxymoron and serves no purpose other than to pad out your diatribe with rhetoric. I don't take issue with most of your criticisms but I say again if it's legal and you don't like it - change the law.
Grenfell had little to do with government, although they make a convenient whipping boy. The apology by Gove was for not knowing how building regs were applied. Do we really expect government to be au fait with the minutiae of council decisions?
The blame is with Kensington council who have been declared responsible by the high court.
The Post Office scandal is still progressing.. For someone who favours due process, I suggest you're jumping the gun in apportioning blame
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:A separate report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, in July 2018, blamed the UK government for outsourcing contracts based on lowest price, saying its use of contractors such as Carillion had caused public services to deteriorate.
Interesting that you didn't mention the same committee after it criticised pretty much the same thing when Brown was PM ("an over-reliance "on a small 'oligopoly' of large suppliers") or the fiasco that came to light regarding the NHS IT system that cost over £10 Billion before it was scrapped, or the recent complaint of the outrageous interest payment now falling due on NHS PFI contracts. Another triumph for Blair opening the doors to private finance.
-
40 minutes ago, DJ360 said:
You appear to favour the 'silly' end of the definition spectrum
As do most of the online dictionaries...
Synonyms for loony:
barmy mainly UK informal
batty informal disapproving
bonkers informal humorous
cracked (MENTAL HEALTH) informal
crackers UK informal
dotty UK informal
kooky mainly US informal
loco mainly US slang
loopy informal
nutty (PERSON) informal
wacky informal
whacky mainly UK informal
-
13 hours ago, letsavagoo said:
That’s where a 3rd party option will gain ground. I think it will damage the Tory’s more than Labour.
I'm inclined to agree and recent surveys bear it out. The danger as I see it is the populist elements of their manifesto mask the weakness of the leadership in having any idea how to run picnic never mind a country..
Their economic policy is quite frankly laughable, though highly attractive to little Englanders and the "shurrup I'm watchin corro" brigade'. I suspect it would be quite ruinous for public spending, health, education etc.
The introduction to the manifesto is full of.. what exactly? Hot air, tub thumping and pipe dreams that will appeal to the hard of thinking, but no sign of any suggestion how to achieve any of it.
Labour I'm sure are going to win and wish washy Starmer will prove to be a bad PM - but not as bad as a Reform parliament.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, letsavagoo said:
I can only repeat my previous comment. Is concern over illegal immigration evidence of xenophobia?
Clearly not however to pretend a dislike of foreigners did not play a part in Brexit is naïve.
In many ways being an island race and somewhat insular we have always had a suspicion of foreigners, those of my generation grew up with it. It's an attitude formed when the map was pink and will linger for some time yet.
Xenophobia is not new or exclusive to any particular section of society yet it seems the Reform party with its policy of one in, one out plays to that and seems to be gathering support.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:
But is it? Is it flippant when Tories go on about the 'loony left'?
Well yes i.e. they're loony, not to be taken seriously.
H was in my opinion a psychopath, whether that fits the description of loony I don't know. A psychopath on the other hand is as serious as a heart attack.
-
Wow Godwins law is till working I see.
Use of the term 'loony' is you must admit somewhat light-hearted and even flippant.
Was Herr H a lunatic? only in the popular perception of the man. A lunatic in my opinion could assume power by default, but to rise through the ranks... I doubt it...
-
The penalty of opening up to Mr Google.... damned if you do, damned if you don;t...
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, DJ360 said:
Reform has moved on from its UKIP and Brexit Party origins to base itself in a broader 'populist' stance and much of what it advocates is certainly superficially appealing, until you look a little deeper..when it gets quite worrying. E.g.,
Exactly my point. Poo pooing any extreme (left or right), organisation as not worthy of serious consideration is something we do at our peril.
-
13 hours ago, DJ360 said:
Reform ( Farage's racist loony party)
Such inflammatory language without proof is to no ones credit and the disparaging reference to being 'loony' runs the risk of them not being taken seriously. Historically the German Socialist Party was much the same. They were ignored and dismissed - until it was too late. I disagree with most of what Farage says and what little I know of him I don't like, but I wouldn't ignore him.
Looking at the Reform membership I can't see evidence of racism, a policy against illegal immigration and for balanced legal immigration is not the same thing at all.
-
Not to worry Col. When the Tories elect Farage as leader all will be well, rainbows will appear, unicorns will be in abundance and the sun will shine all day...
-
14 hours ago, catfan said:
& Germany in rcessionI1 too. Well done the EU.
Close, but not quite...
-
Just reread my piece above...I really should stop posting when I'm tired but I'll just draw attention tp the mentality of Nottingham councillor Mellen who, after admitting the council spending decisions contributed to the bankruptcy, said they're refusing the independent recommendations of budget cuts as it's against his conscience. i wonder if he's trying to spin it out until wish washy Starmer gets in and bails him out.
Anything Political
in + Av Yer Say +
Posted
I didn't say they never lie, I said rarely.
The questions is "can you prove it" most, myself included, believe Johnson lied, but prove that he did not believe what he was saying at the time. He was challenged and presented facts to back up his statements. Was he lying, given inaccurate information or simply misinterpreting what his researchers told him?
When you say something you sincerely believe that later turns out to be false, are you lying?
Is withholding information to suit your own ends a lie?
There are so many shades of grey, so many nuances and with a careful choice of words the average person really stands no chance of sorting the wheat from chaff.
Is that a better way than letting them continue to make a fools of them selves? The next question...is he lying? This was quite famous at the time:
It was a battle of wills and Paxman lost in my opinion by allowing the interview to move on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqU77I40mS0
The BBC also fact checks some articles but like so many of the discussions in this forum the evidence can vary depending on where you look for it.