Anything Political

[DJ360 6,721]

I'm a bit busy at present.. getting sorted for a drive to Bristol tomorrow for the Bristol Hi Fi Show. Early night called for too. I'll be back Sunday and respond then.

[Brew 5,404]

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...

[Oztalgian 3,269]

The more I read this thread and experience "politics" of all persuasions at all levels of government here the more disillusioned I become.

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. A recent example here was that prior to the last Federal election both the PM and Defence Minister came to Adelaide and announced that nine new warships were to be built locally. Last week the number was reduced to six. Bearing in mind the last election was only two years ago then surely defence planning extends for more than two years and they should have known what and how many they needed well before that given the procurement lead times of capital ships.

At a local level our council has spent a small fortune on "revitalising" our main street using pavers that are prone to both sinking and lifting, improving street lighting and removing parking places when the street was perfectly functional as it was. Our State governments bestowing many millions on privately owned sporting clubs and tempting sports promoters to hold events here and not even disclosing the cost, hiding behind "commercial in confidence" clauses in contracts. This is public money being spent on politicians vanity projects when, for example, our hospitals and ambulance service cannot respond in a timely manner and spend thousands of hours a month ramped at hospitals because there are no beds for the patients they are carrying.

Our State government has recently announced a AU$100,000,000 pre feasibility study for a desalination project to deliver water for primarily mining companies in the far north of our state. It conveniently forgets that we already have a desalination plant in the metro area which is hardly ever used. Just run the pipes from there and utilise this facility and not build a new one 

A message to all politicians "Get your priorities right"

[Brew 5,404]

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?

[Brew 5,404]

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?

[Stuart.C 491]

I was aware of talk of proposals for the East Midlands amalgamation and now assume that I must have thought that others, not the residents would be making the decision.

I must have been asleep between November 2022 and Jan 2023 as I don't remember any mention or any contact by anyone or by letter of any link to the consultation website, which I've just found.

Obviously the Have your say section has now been disabled / removed.

https://www.eastmidlandsdevolution.co.uk/
 

 

I wonder if the result had gone against, the 4 authorities would have suddenly started pushing for people to respond as I'm sure there must be a good few persons within those authorities who think that they are personally going to do well out of it.

[Brew 5,404]

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.

 

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,269]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

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?

 

Do you really believe that politicians of all persuasions were not blatantly lying over Brexit? 

If I were a TV or radio interviewer or a newspaper reporter and a pollie obfuscated or didn't answer the question asked I would immediately end the interview and tell the public why I had terminated the interview. As for hiding behind "commercial in confidence" they are spending taxpayers money and unless it is a matter of national security then it should be public knowledge.

Interestingly in law a liar can be accused of perjury whereas someone who misleads cannot.

The national broadcaster here, the ABC, regularly engages in fact checking our politicians for their media releases and speeches and runs articles on how well the pollies are tracking to their election promises. Of 66 promises made by the current government upon their election 22 have been delivered, 36 are in progress, 6 are stalled (not on track to be delivered but not yet a broken promise and 2 have been broken either by not being delivered by the promised deadline or not legislated or relevant acts amended.

[Brew 5,404]

4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Do you really believe that politicians of all persuasions were not blatantly lying over Brexit? 

 

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.

 

 

4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

If I were a TV or radio interviewer or a newspaper reporter and a pollie obfuscated or didn't answer the question asked I would immediately end the interview and tell the public why I had terminated the interview.

 

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.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,269]

Just read an interesting article in the "Gridiron" about the miners strike in 1984-85. I remember the 1972 strike well Although I was not there I "lived" the 84-85 strike through my brother who was a staunch unionist and other family members who were supporters of the UDM. The article in no way relates to my understanding of the strike in the north Notts mining village I was born and brought up in. In all I thought it was a pretty superficial article.

On reading the comments following it was said that in the 1983 and 1987 general elections that the Conservatives won a large majority of seats despite only having 43% of the national vote due to years of gerrymandering. In 1997 Blair won a 179 seat majority with the same 43% of the vote. If these figures are correct then surely there is a need to change the voting system in the UK to make sure the parliament better reflects the wishes of the people. No doubt gerrymandering was engaged in by both sides at various times when in power. Here in South Australia our electoral boundaries are changed quite frequently in order to reflect demographic changes and try and maintain electorates of roughly equal population numbers. This is overseen by the supposedly independent Electoral Commission of South Australia.

[Stuart.C 491]

The boundaries are also regularly changed in the U.K to keep the number of registered voters per ward as equal as possible.

I'm in Nottingham North which is now changing to Nottm North and Kimberley as the numbers in Nottm North have dropped below the minimum.
Will it make a difference and get Labour out who have been in seemingly for ever, not a chance.

 

If 43% got the Conservtives in and 43% got Labour in, then even if 100% voted the outcome would still be the same.

 

[Stavertongirl 1,719]

I have a question. What are the Commissioners coming in to sort the Council budget out going to do precisely? Also why are they costing £1,500 and 2 at just over £1000 a day? Seems a bit excessive when the Council is already bankrupt. I await to be enlightened.

[philmayfield 6,115]

They will be doing a detailed forensic accounting examination. Each commissioner will be accompanied by a staff of experts.

[mary1947 2,079]

i don't normally post on these pages  but what are your views on Lee Anderson who was a Labour councillor then Conservative now i see he is an Ashfield  independent                                                                 

When will he ever  learn???

[benjamin1945 16,139]

On 7/21/2023 at 6:30 PM, benjamin1945 said:

Never ever ever could i vote Conservative.......especially since i bumped into Lee Anderson a few months ago..........who is now a Tory after being Labour.in my area of Ashfield........ex Miner who just goes with anything to stay in the limelight.....he just looks and sounds so False...probably be Lib/Dem after the next election....

Told ya months ago    

[Stuart.C 491]

This is what the Commissioners will be doing, (from Nottm City Council website)

 

The Government has announced that Commissioners are to be appointed for Nottingham City Council. 

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) has confirmed that the Secretary of State, after considering representations and all other developments since his ‘minded to’ proposals, has decided to appoint Commissioners for the council.

The Lead Commissioner for Nottingham will be Tony McArdle OBE who was previously Lead Commissioner at the former Northamptonshire County Council and is currently Chair of the London Borough of Croydon Improvement and Assurance Panel. He will be supported by Margaret Lee as Commissioner for Finance, with the intention that a Commissioner for transformation will be nominated in due course. 

The Commissioners have been granted extensive powers and will oversee the full range of the council’s improvement activities, including strategies to secure the medium and long term financial sustainability of the council and plans to transform front line services. 

The appointment of Commissioners replaces the Improvement and Assurance Board with immediate effect, although the Commissioners will be able to draw on the input of Sir Tony Redmond and former IAB members as they see fit. 

Major pressures affecting local government nationally, including the cost of increased demand for children’s and adults’ social care and rising homelessness presentations, have led to a £23 million overspend in 2023/24 and the need to request Exceptional Financial Support from government in the form of capitalisation which allows the council to use capital receipts from asset sales to meet ongoing revenue costs as a short term measure. 

In addition, an extensive budget savings package which will have a significant impact on local services is due to be decided on by councillors at a meeting of the City Council scheduled for 4 March 2024. 

In response to the Government appointments, Councillor David Mellen, Leader of the Council, said: “Our preferred option was to continue to work with the Improvement and Assurance Board which has been overseeing improvements at the council since 2021. 

“We feel that significant progress was being made across the council. However, we are committed to working constructively and collaboratively with the Commissioners to tackle Nottingham’s current challenges.”

Mel Barrett, the council’s Chief Executive, said: “The council is committed to working in collaboration with the Commissioners to continue our improvement journey at pace, reshaping the organisation to put the authority on a stable financial footing, while delivering essential services for Nottingham residents within the resources that we have.

“Our wider transformation work is already well under way and the expert input and challenge from the Commissioners will be invaluable to our officers and councillors as they look to accelerate that process further.”

[Brew 5,404]

2 hours ago, benjamin1945 said:

ex Miner who just goes with anything to stay in the limelight.....he just looks and sounds so False...

To be fair Ben that's dislike on a personal basis and offers nothing we can evaluate. Anderson has never shied from controversy and may even be accused of courting it, and today the trial by media is in full swing and the luvvies absolutely wetting themselves whipping it into a frenzy.

 

Has anyone actually read, word for word, what was said? He is accused of racism, because it suits some to do so. however he referred to Islam and Islamists, not as a general slur but a very pointed accusation against Khan and his pals.

Islam, as far as I'm aware is a religion not a race so at worst it's discrimination, but if you can work the racism angle it carries more weight.

 

Name calling, cat calling is part of the ridiculous, childish behaviour we see every day in the commons, The beast of Bolsover was famous for it. Col is practically on a crusade about Tory cronyism and their misdeeds and that's fine, it's fervent belief and should be free to say so, why can't MPs be allowed the same privilege? The typical answer is because of the amount of influence he has... really?

 

One day when MPs can be arsed to turn up and stop watching porn on the phone. they might start to pay attention and deliver some decent arguments instead of this incessant squabbling.

 

He may be boorish but with so little freedom to say what we think the slightest awkward phrase is seized upon, and taken out of context by those who are habitually 'offended'.

Perhaps they should go and buy some big boys pants.

[Brew 5,404]

6 hours ago, Stavertongirl said:

I have a question. What are the Commissioners coming in to sort the Council budget out going to do precisely? Also why are they costing £1,500 and 2 at just over £1000 a day? Seems a bit excessive when the Council is already bankrupt. I await to be enlightened.

 

Simple arithmetic tells me it totals £575.000, I wonder if any of the missing £5 million will pay for it?

[Oztalgian 3,269]

On 10/14/2023 at 5:19 AM, DJ360 said:

I very much doubt that a proper enquiry will confirm anything like the level of 'Woke ideology' etc. that Donelan claims.

The "wokelings are alive and well, as I see today that BBFC(British Board of Film Classification)has raised the rating of Mary Poppins from a G General or U Universal rating to a PG Parental Guidance rating as some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. Apparently, it is all about the use of the word Hottentots which is now regarded as racially offensive.

I doubt very much that a young child of today would know what a Hottentot is/was.

FFS how the heck did we get here, we must take back control and stop this stupidity. I suggest we start by not using neutral gender words. A female who acts is an actress and a male who acts is an actor, any other suggestions?

[Jill Sparrow 10,303]

I've always thought it would be a good name for a Nursery. 

[Beekay 5,134]

But a female lady who sews frocks is still called a 'Seamstress'.

[Jill Sparrow 10,303]

I, personally, don't know any chaps who make their own frocks, Beekay.

[Brew 5,404]

8 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

suggest we start by not using neutral gender words

 

I'm unsure how gender neutral pronouns are suppose to be used, when refering to he/she i's in the third person and not addressed directly to the person. Speaking directly to someone I use the pronoun "you", it's simple unambiguous and not open to interpretation.  They/them is not only pretentious it's stupid and I refuse to play the silly game.

[philmayfield 6,115]

It’s gets more like ‘1984’ each day. Being careful what you say to avoid causing offence. We’ll all be microchipped soon so the ‘thought police’ can detect us. I’ve always been outspoken so being offensive comes naturally to me. 

[Beekay 5,134]

That's one of the many things I admire about you sir.