UK General Election 2017 - 8 June

[GS]

Not really.

Major was pre Good Friday Agreement. We're now twenty years after the GFA, and the principle of consent has been agreed / verified by referenda in both north and south.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Jonathan Powell is a slimy toad cunt who hasn't moved on from backslapping about the first Blair term. He, Campbell and Mandelson should be rounded up when the Corbyn regime comes in and either hanged or sent to some kind of penal colony.

[GS]

Jonathan Powell is a slimy toad cunt who hasn't moved on from backslapping about the first Blair term. He, Campbell and Mandelson should be rounded up when the Corbyn regime comes in and either hanged or sent to some kind of penal colony.

The Falklands would do, assuming we don't hand it over to the Argies.

[John]

Sounds like Brady is readying the catapult.

[Magic]

What really has pissed me off is Bouldy adopting 'the absolute boy'. Fucking cunt. Boydy

[Dark Soldier]

From Eis Nein on CaB, re: members of the DUP:

Jim Wells - Health Minister. Said kids with gay parents more likely to be abused. Said foetuses the 'ultimate victim' in rape pregnancies.
Ian Paisley Jr. - Described being 'repulsed' by homosexuals. Claimed over £1million in expenses over five years.
Jim Shannon - Claimed most expenses of any MP in Westminster in 2015: £205,798, excluding travel costs.
Emma Pengelly - Daughter of a convicted loyalist terrorist. Voted against equal marriage and opposes extending the Abortion Act to NI.
Iris Robinson - Had an affair with a man she knew since he was 9 years old and was ' a mother to'. Procured £50k in loans for him.
Peter Robinson - Defended preacher who described Islam as the 'spawn of Satan'. Said he'd trust a Muslim 'to go to the shops for him'.
Paul Givan - Supports business right to discriminate against gays on religious grounds. Brought motion to get creationism taught as science.
Gregory Campbell - Openly mocked the Irish language in NI Assembly. Supports bringing back the death penalty. Jokes about hunger strikers.
Sammy Wilson - Agreed with man who said 'get the ethnics out'. Openly stated climate change is a myth while he was environmental minister.
Edwin Poots - Believes Earth is 6000 yrs old. Wanted to extend the gay blood donation ban to people who have sex "with somebody in Africa".
Paul Girvan - Said that all scrap metal dealers should be armed with guns to protect themselves from "gypsies".
Tom Buchanan - Told a room full of children that homosexuality is 'an abomination'. Opposes gay adoption and gay blood donation.
Mervyn Storey - Young earth creationist, wants intelligent design taught in schools. Opposed Ulster Museum exhibit on evolution.
Nigel Dodds - Attended funeral of UVF commander John Bingham: A man responsible for illegally smuggling arms to loyalist forces from Canada.

:harold:

[Bartholomert]

What the hell happened? I thought conservatives were absolutely wrecking it in the polls AND you got terrorist attacks right on the eve of the vote. Can someone explain this outcome?

[GS]

What the hell happened? I thought conservatives were absolutely wrecking it in the polls AND you got terrorist attacks right on the eve of the vote. Can someone explain this outcome?

Theresa May happened.

[Bartholomert]

From Eis Nein on CaB, re: members of the DUP:

Jim Wells - Health Minister. Said kids with gay parents more likely to be abused. Said foetuses the 'ultimate victim' in rape pregnancies.
Ian Paisley Jr. - Described being 'repulsed' by homosexuals. Claimed over £1million in expenses over five years.
Jim Shannon - Claimed most expenses of any MP in Westminster in 2015: £205,798, excluding travel costs.
Emma Pengelly - Daughter of a convicted loyalist terrorist. Voted against equal marriage and opposes extending the Abortion Act to NI.
Iris Robinson - Had an affair with a man she knew since he was 9 years old and was ' a mother to'. Procured £50k in loans for him.
Peter Robinson - Defended preacher who described Islam as the 'spawn of Satan'. Said he'd trust a Muslim 'to go to the shops for him'.
Paul Givan - Supports business right to discriminate against gays on religious grounds. Brought motion to get creationism taught as science.
Gregory Campbell - Openly mocked the Irish language in NI Assembly. Supports bringing back the death penalty. Jokes about hunger strikers.
Sammy Wilson - Agreed with man who said 'get the ethnics out'. Openly stated climate change is a myth while he was environmental minister.
Edwin Poots - Believes Earth is 6000 yrs old. Wanted to extend the gay blood donation ban to people who have sex "with somebody in Africa".
Paul Girvan - Said that all scrap metal dealers should be armed with guns to protect themselves from "gypsies".
Tom Buchanan - Told a room full of children that homosexuality is 'an abomination'. Opposes gay adoption and gay blood donation.
Mervyn Storey - Young earth creationist, wants intelligent design taught in schools. Opposed Ulster Museum exhibit on evolution.
Nigel Dodds - Attended funeral of UVF commander John Bingham: A man responsible for illegally smuggling arms to loyalist forces from Canada.

:harold:

Okay jk this isn't that bad :drool:

[Jimmy Floyd]

Let me tell you, the policing community are having the absolute time of their lives today. Their glee make's Jezza's count speech seem like a funeral paean.

[John]

Joking about hunger strikers is to be encouraged.

Bit daft to include the retired Peter Robinson on the list and not mention the fact that he founded a paramilitary group.

[Bartholomert]

These guys seem like Republican Congressmen from deep-red districts in the South. I didn't know people from the UK could be that based.

[Jimmy Floyd]

These guys seem like Republican Congressmen from deep-red districts in the South. I didn't know people from the UK could be that based.

It's Northern Ireland. The only other show in town, apart from them, is the IRA.

[Henry]

Teresa May is going to "reflect". She's been pushed.

[Magic]

An alternative theory: this has been purposely done by (some Tories) or Theresa herself. It's too much of a fuck up for it to be by accident, the refusal of debating, the refusal of interviews, it's like she's been told to shut up or she herself has sabotaged it.

WHY. The question is WHY.

[Boydy]

What really has pissed me off is Bouldy adopting 'the absolute boy'. Fucking cunt. Boydy

Get to fuck.


Any validity to this from Jonathan Powell?

I think he's bang on there. It's really quite worrying for the future of devolution in Northern Ireland.

[Magic]

:lol:

[Yeldoow]

If she goes over she weekend she's going to look pretty stupid after making a deal with the DUP, going to the Queen and saying she's forming a government.

[7om]

Just mooching around on Twitter and thought I'd go and see how resident cry baby Owen Jones is handling this situation. Turns out I'm blocked.

[Boydy]

I didn't have you down as a cunt before this thread, Zom.

Good to know.

[John]

Just mooching around on Twitter and thought I'd go and see how resident cry baby Owen Jones is handling this situation. Turns out I'm blocked.

He's organising/attending a protest against the proposed coalition.

[7om]

I didn't have you down as a cunt before this thread, Zom.

Good to know.

And why would that be?

[GS]

873207568830795776

The things we can leverage out of the UK government here to stop this sort of shite from being allowed. :drool:

We can get the bypass at York Street sorted, for starters.

[Dark Soldier]

https://i.gyazo.com/cbb4fc6400c002374dcbfda82e5000ed.png

[niko_cee]

What the hell happened? I thought conservatives were absolutely wrecking it in the polls AND you got terrorist attacks right on the eve of the vote. Can someone explain this outcome?

The terror attacks were (paradoxically) quite damaging for the Conservatives seeing as May presided over extensive police cuts which gave Labour an easy line of attack in the final weeks/days (on top of all the other fuck ups).

Another great vox pop I heard today was form some white van man who said that he had voted for Labour because someone who promises the earth but has no chance of delivering it is preferable to a robot who just repeats a nauseating mantra ad infinitum.

[Pepe]

Theresa May happened.

I though she was being smart by not going to those debates, not that debates and campaigns matter.

[Magic]

I though she was being smart by not going to those debates, not that debates and campaigns matter.

It was until Corbyn decided to go.

[Lewis]

George Osborne is a cunt.

[7om]

George Osborne is a cunt.

He's really twisting the knife with some of these Evening Standard headlines. He must be lolling his head off behind the scenes.

[Magic]

He was pictured smiling evily when the exit poll was announced.

[Lewis]

It's the equivalent of me being banned from here and making quality ItalAussie jokes around the empty house. Deep down he's still utterly, utterly SEETHING about his life's work being torched and having to edit a waxwork-owned freesheet to stay relevant.

[7om]

Would have been interesting if he'd stayed on as an MP and challenged (murdered) May for the leadership.

[GS]

I though she was being smart by not going to those debates, not that debates and campaigns matter.

It was the manifesto, in my view. A lot of unpopular policies that she simply couldn't defend or decided it wasn't actually worth the hassle of defending. The two key issues that could have hammered Labour - deficit and Brexit - disappeared into the long grass as they started fighting a stupid defensive action against domestic policy like winter fuel, school lunch, social care, and, of all things, fox hunting. Not a single positive news story there.

Now, I didn't think such huge numbers would be gullible enough to swallow the tax everyone who isn't you to spend it on all things you like manifesto that Corbyn put together - but it was an easy sell for him in both absolute and relative terms. The Tory vote's held up - they've been fucked by everybody else being sufficiently motivated by how shit they were to turn out for the other guy.

[GS]

Would have been interesting if he'd stayed on as an MP and challenged (murdered) May for the leadership.

He probably rather regrets not running again now.

He's still a wanker.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I think the negative Tory/May stuff is being overplayed. They massively increased their vote share to 42%+. It's the positive Corbyn stuff that made the difference to the result.

[Pepe]

I can't help but lol at people who care about the deficit.

What's the deal with Brexit? There's a video a few pages back with Corbyn saying he wants a 'jobs first Brexit' or some shite like that.

[Pepe]

I think the negative Tory/May stuff is being overplayed. They massively increased their vote share to 42%+. It's the positive Corbyn stuff that made the difference to the result.

So basically the two main parties gained and all other parties went to shit?

[Jimmy Floyd]

So basically the two main parties gained and all other parties went to shit?

More or less.

This also confirms in my mind Bernie would have beaten Trump easily. Unlucky mate.

[7om]

So basically the two main parties gained and all other parties went to shit?

UKIP are basically no more and SNP have been seriously shafted in Scotland.

[GS]

How much faith one can place in opinion polls I don't know, but the Tory vote did go down on where it was at the start of the campaign. That said, I'd be reasonably confident saying it "held up" in the face of a deeply unimpressive campaign and policies which seemed designed to piss off their own base.

The question is why people were driven to Corbyn - the deficit was a potent argument two years ago, it was barely mentioned this time. He'd be shit at Brexit, obviously, but it was barely mentioned. The entire campaign was an argument on domestic policy and it's easy to sell an extra £40bn spending per year when you're also telling people that they wouldn't be the ones paying for it. May had no positive domestic policy whatsoever to offer as a counter, and a refusal to engage on the deficit issue meant they couldn't discredit his economic plans in the way they should have.

There is no way that a remotely competent Tory campaign manages to end up in this position.

[Boydy]

George Osborne is a cunt.


It's the equivalent of me being banned from here and making quality ItalAussie jokes around the empty house. Deep down he's still utterly, utterly SEETHING about his life's work being torched and having to edit a waxwork-owned freesheet to stay relevant.

Seething. :harold:

[Pepe]

More or less.

This also confirms in my mind Bernie would have beaten Trump easily. Unlucky mate.

I know. :(

[Shindig]

Is Middlesbrough technically the north east?

They're not even people in Middlesbrough.

[GS]

I've been to Middlesbrough. It's dreadful.

[Yevrah]

On Cameron, while I liked him for a time, he was ultimately fucking useless and it was his initial decision and subsequent piss poor campaign that led to all this mess.

[Yeldoow]

How much faith one can place in opinion polls I don't know, but the Tory vote did go down on where it was at the start of the campaign. That said, I'd be reasonably confident saying it "held up" in the face of a deeply unimpressive campaign and policies which seemed designed to piss off their own base.

The question is why people were driven to Corbyn - the deficit was a potent argument two years ago, it was barely mentioned this time. He'd be shit at Brexit, obviously, but it was barely mentioned. The entire campaign was an argument on domestic policy and it's easy to sell an extra £40bn spending per year when you're also telling people that they wouldn't be the ones paying for it. May had no positive domestic policy whatsoever to offer as a counter, and a refusal to engage on the deficit issue meant they couldn't discredit his economic plans in the way they should have.

There is no way that a remotely competent Tory campaign manages to end up in this position.

The deficit was a potent argument two years ago because Labour under Ed Milliband was basically the same as Labour that got votes out in 2010. It was also the first general election since they got votes out so their past record was a bigger issue.

Labour under Corbyn is quite different from Labour in 2010 and 2015, so their past record is not so easy to is against them. In addition this despite being only two years from the last election was basically a government seeking a third term so the Conservatives record is under much more scrutiny​, and in the 7 years they've been in they've missed their targets on the deficit repeatedly and in doing so nearly doubled the national debt. It's not really a position to be lecturing Labour on their record from.

In addition in those 7 years of failing to meet their targets of eliminating the deficit they have cut public services and welfare back so far that the NHS and education system are in crisis, and people have starved to death after having their benefits taken away.

So if you are given a choice between a party who are going to cut and cut and cut public services and still not be able to balance the budget, and a party who say they will invest in public services and raise the money from those who have been seen to benefit most from the previous 7 years of cuts, a lot of people will vote for the later even if they're not convinced that the figures really add up.

[Shindig]

Damn straight. And the fallout is amazing. The only guy with any heart in leaving was Gove but he had no friends in the party. Boris joined up just to look important but you're going to find fewer and fewer candidates who want to lead Britain out of the Union. May's staying for that reason.

[Lewis]

Missing their deficit targets was piss poor, but pinkos throwing the national debt up at the Conservative Party is the one mainstream argument I actually find myself seething at. 'Ooh, you borrowed more money than...' Yeah. Why is that?

[Jimmy Floyd]

So if you are given a choice between a party who are going to cut and cut and cut public services and still not be able to balance the budget, and a party who say they will invest in public services and raise the money from those who have been seen to benefit most from the previous 7 years of cuts, a lot of people will vote for the later even if they're not convinced that the figures really add up.

So in other words people want free stuff, they want it immediately, and they want 'the rich' (whoever they might be, and however inaccessible their wealth/income might be) to pay for the lot.

[Pepe]

You're better than that.

[Boydy]

Ah, here we go, back to the Tory wankfest in here. Normality has returned.

[Shindig]

I mean, I'm getting that lifetime ISA for the free grand a year.

[7om]

Ah, here we go, back to the Tory wankfest in here. Normality has returned.

:harold:

[Jimmy Floyd]

Personally I don't think a welfare state in the way people romantically imagine it is any longer possible in Britain (70 odd million people, small island, immovable ideas from the 1940s across all walks of life). There just isn't the money to pay for it.

You can't tax the rich. People have been trying to tax the rich since the Bible. The rich are more powerful than transient political governments and there are no circumstances in which that will change. It even did for the Soviet Union.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Ah, here we go, back to the Tory wankfest in here. Normality has returned.

What the thread needs is more crap memes and non-specific whingeing.

[Pepe]

There is more money than there has ever been. You could afford it after two bloody wars but it is impossible now?

Money is not a finite resource btw.

[Shindig]

I wonder if many young people in work give a piss about saving, too be fair. That kind of shit starts at home and no government can really fix that mentality.

[Pepe]

Most young people don't earn enough to be able to save. I don't know how the interest rates are over there, but in the US, there is not much point to saving either.

[Boydy]

"Why aren't millennials buying diamonds?"

[Lewis]

You could afford it after two bloody wars but it is impossible now?

I'm not saying you're wrong generally, but this is one of the great myths, the idea that we still managed to afford a welfare state even with all of our ware debt. We didn't. The austerity this country was subjected to under that post-war Labour government is unimaginable today. Food rationing was actually more stringent after the war than it had been during it, and we were still rationing meat until 1954.

[Shindig]

Interest rates have tanked over here. I really hope the lifetime ISA takes but I'd reckon people will look at it, see the terms & conditions and then bugger off. First thing to go when they get a permanent job is the pension contributions, too. Fucking eejits.

It's not entirely about earnings. They're shit with money.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The one area where I'm on a wavelength with Corbyn is wages. 'Business leaders', whoever the fuck they are, always seem to think that pay increasing is the sign of an unhealthy economy. It really fucking isn't.

[Yeldoow]

So in other words people want free stuff, they want it immediately, and they want 'the rich' (whoever they might be, and however inaccessible their wealth/income might be) to pay for the lot.

Public services aren't free. They are paid for out of everyone's taxes.

If I break my leg and have to go to the hospital I will not have to pay for my care then and there, but it's not free. I have been paying for it in my taxes since I was 16.

Labour campaigned on the best off on society making a bigger contribution not that the rest of us should stop paying for it.

Claiming that people just want "free stuff" is a lazy hollow argument.

[niko_cee]

Don't the best off already essentially pay for everything anyway?

[Pepe]

I'm not saying you're wrong generally, but this is one of the great myths, the idea that we still managed to afford a welfare state even with all of our ware debt. We didn't. The austerity this country was subjected to under that post-war Labour government is unimaginable today. Food rationing was actually more stringent after the war than it had been during it, and we were still rationing meat until 1954.

I'm not saying everyone was living it large back in the day or anything. There is a question of priorities though. I am far from a British history expert, but if you could create the NHS under those conditions, that is because everyone decided it was a priority. It is just hard to believe that pensions and healthcare are something we cannot afford nowadays when we can afford (taking the food rationing as an example) to throw a third of all the food we produce, or we can afford to have people with billions of dollars in individual fortunes.

If enough people believed that things such as their fellow citizens being able to afford a house, healthcare, and an education is a priority, then every western countries could afford it just fine. If any 'austerity' was needed (and I doubt it is in most cases,) we would look elsewhere. Truth is, many are ok with the idea of other people in their own countries being stuck in poverty, and they justify it with the good old 'sorry mate, can't afford to help you, otherwise I totally would.'

[Pepe]

The one area where I'm on a wavelength with Corbyn is wages. 'Business leaders', whoever the fuck they are, always seem to think that pay increasing is the sign of an unhealthy economy. It really fucking isn't.

The less they pay others the more they pay themselves.

[Shindig]

Also, a shit interest rate deterring people from saving is ... shit. "It'll sit there gaining nowt so I'll SPEND IT NOW BECAUSE I'M RETARDED!" Pack that cash away, man.

[Pepe]

Also, a shit interest rate deterring people from saving is ... shit. "It'll sit there gaining nowt so I'll SPEND IT NOW BECAUSE I'M RETARDED!" Pack that cash away, man.

The best savings account I could find here gives me 1% per year. That's less than half the inflation rate. So I will be able to afford less stuff in a few years than I am able to afford now. In that way, saving doesn't make much sense.

Not that home economics have anythging to do with national economics, mind. Not sure what 'the young are shit at saving' has to do with anything.

[Pepe]

Fwiw, I did check the famous manifesto briefly and it didn't seem to offer much beyond spend moar and tax the rich moar. Hard to find politicians that offer proper solutions to, well, anything.

[mikem]

The best savings account I could find here gives me 1% per year. That's less than half the inflation rate. So I will be able to afford less stuff in a few years than I am able to afford now. In that way, saving doesn't make much sense.

Not that home economics have anythging to do with national economics, mind. Not sure what 'the young are shit at saving' has to do with anything.

If you are determined to save for the future by putting money in the vehicle that provides the greatest amount of liquidity in exchange for the lowest interest rates, then there really is not much to be solved here.

[GS]

I'm not saying everyone was living it large back in the day or anything. There is a question of priorities though. I am far from a British history expert, but if you could create the NHS under those conditions, that is because everyone decided it was a priority. It is just hard to believe that pensions and healthcare are something we cannot afford nowadays when we can afford (taking the food rationing as an example) to throw a third of all the food we produce, or we can afford to have people with billions of dollars in individual fortunes.

If enough people believed that things such as their fellow citizens being able to afford a house, healthcare, and an education is a priority, then every western countries could afford it just fine. If any 'austerity' was needed (and I doubt it is in most cases,) we would look elsewhere. Truth is, many are ok with the idea of other people in their own countries being stuck in poverty, and they justify it with the good old 'sorry mate, can't afford to help you, otherwise I totally would.'

They could afford the NHS because there was a much lower population and it cost significantly less as a percentage of GDP:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/340B/production/_86232331_king'sfund.jpg

On pensions, there's been a big increase since Major was in government:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TI-RkyM5I-E/UeAucaI0cMI/AAAAAAAABLs/D54NAHSIqRw/s1600/PensionAsPercentGDP.JPG

I don't buy the argument that because we could afford them once, we can afford them always. If people want services funded at that level, that's fine - but they need to make a choice between piling more tax in and having the service or not piling the tax in and not having the service. What they seem to want, however, is other people to pile the tax in so they can get everything for free. These things are unsustainable, and any Labour government coming in and implementing the Corbyn economic plan would just see a Tory government five years later coming in and having to slash it all back again.

[Pepe]

If you are determined to save for the future by putting money in the vehicle that provides the greatest amount of liquidity in exchange for the lowest interest rates, then there really is not much to be solved here.

I'm a foreigner, I don't have many options. Not that other 'vehicles' offer much more, unless you get into the nasty world of the stock exchange.

[GS]

From the people who glossed over Corbyn's support for the IRA, I give you this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DB58iWRXcAArZ37.jpg

What seething there's going to be when the DUP extract an extra £1bn in capital investment for the province as the price of not collapsing the government.

[Mazuuurk]

I'm sorry guys, but what a fucking farce your country's politics seem to be :cab:

[Dark Soldier]

Eh its alright we'll just see more cuts against the cripples and it'll pay for the NHS once they all die off.

[Dark Soldier]

"Tarquin, that flid has a television and a games console, bring the noose my good man"

[Magic]

I'm so left wing now. Might start campaigning.

#CHANGE #FORTHEMANY

[Pepe]

I don't buy the argument that because we could afford them once, we can afford them always. If people want services funded at that level, that's fine - but they need to make a choice between piling more tax in and having the service or not piling the tax in and not having the service. What they seem to want, however, is other people to pile the tax in so they can get everything for free. These things are unsustainable, and any Labour government coming in and implementing the Corbyn economic plan would just see a Tory government five years later coming in and having to slash it all back again.

I wouldn't buy that argument either. I just find it hard to believe that you couldn't afford it now. The NHS seems like one of those things worth paying for, no matter the cost. Not having universal healthcare is not an alternative imo, and lol at privatized healthcare. Pensions are tricky business, I must admit, what with our increasing life expectancies and less and less people paying into the system (because shit jobs.) Still, rather see the shit jobs side addressed before slashing left and right. I also have no problem with people wanting those who have benefited the most to also cooperate the most, although I do recognize the complications. What I would like to see is companies being made accountable for all the external costs that their massive profit-making endeavours generate, costs that society bears just so they can make a fortune. That is something that is often glossed over: how much costs society bears, just so a few can profit massively.

[Pepe]

I'm so left wing now. Might start campaigning.

#CHANGE #FORTHEMANY

:cool:

[GS]

I wouldn't buy that argument either. I just find it hard to believe that you couldn't afford it now. The NHS seems like one of those things worth paying for, no matter the cost. Not having universal healthcare is not an alternative imo, and lol at privatized healthcare. Pensions are tricky business, I must admit, what with our increasing life expectancies and less and less people paying into the system (because shit jobs.) Still, rather see the shit jobs side addressed before slashing left and right. I also have no problem with people wanting those who have benefited the most to also cooperate the most, although I do recognize the complications. What I would like to see is companies being made accountable for all the external costs that their massive profit-making endeavours generate, costs that society bears just so they can make a fortune. That is something that is often glossed over: how much costs society bears, just so a few can profit massively.

The problem with funding healthcare in the UK is that people are viscerally attached to the NHS. Attempting to reform it would lead to outcry. The Tories don't have the moral authority to do it, so the only party who realistically could are Labour. They're not going to do it because they hold a romanticised view of the NHS as it was in 1947. Ergo we continue this ridiculous exercise where the can is kicked down the road every parliament and the mantras "we're increasing funding in real terms" and "we've ring fenced spending" are repeated ad nauseam, as if it's a solution to anything.

Every time that a solution or tax rise or whatever is proposed, even if it is broadly reasonable, a significant chunk of the population goes absolutely apeshit. The Tories suggested increasing NIC contributions for the self-employed - it was only ever lower because they didn't get a full state pension. They now do, so it's entirely reasonable to align the brackets and percentage payments. This was a "tax on aspiration" and "tax on hard working people", was claimed to breach the 2015 manifesto, and thus had to be binned. It's suggested that the triple lock on pensions be removed, with the relatively arbitrary 2.5% increase p.a. dropped. It only made its way into the coalition agreement because they thought it would cost £50m (lol). Look at the difference in funding it would require over the next few parliaments:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/15112/production/_95809268_6ac270c2-f49f-481c-84e3-d4eda10d0fec.jpg

She suggests that every single child shouldn't get a free lunch or that every single household shouldn't get the winter fuel payment, and people go apeshit even though means testing means there's more money (theoretically) for people who actually need it. They increase tuition fees and reorganise the system in a way that increases access for poorer students (by maximising places and minimising payments until they're earning well) and Jez starts banging on about using £11bn of the pot to cut it even though it's a progressive system that would only benefit the richest graduates:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/observations/Obs%2C%20tutition%20fees%2C%201.PNG

And then the real winner was the social care policy. I didn't like it, because I'm highly attached to the idea that inheritance shouldn't be taxed, but you had a situation where the left were arguing that the middle and upper classes should have their property wealth protected and money for social care found from elsewhere.

All of these are examples where people are confronted with the idea that public services need to be paid for, and they very much dislike the idea of paying for it themselves. The Labour idea that "only the top 5% are going to pay for it, so you can have all of this and you can have it for free" sounds fantastic - but it's nonsense. We've seen the development of an entire section of the electorate who are simply not prepared to acknowledge that they, or people they know, might actually have to pay for some of it themselves.

[Magic]

Boring.

[GS]

Boring.

Yes, I suspect many of those who ultimately voted for Labour find it to be so. That's probably why they accept the Labour argument without scrutiny.

[Magic]

Get off the pitch, nerd!

[Shindig]

"Tarquin, that flid has a television and a games console, bring the noose my good man"

Don't tell them how you got your Xbox.

[Dark Soldier]

My anus is still sore.

[Magic]

Page 39 is a cracking read. In fact this whole thread from the exit poll is tremendous. :drool:

[Pepe]

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/observations/Obs%2C%20tutition%20fees%2C%201.PNG

Not sure I follow this one. What's the y-axis?

[GS]

Not sure I follow this one. What's the y-axis?

Average lifetime repayments.

[Pepe]

Every time that a solution or tax rise or whatever is proposed, even if it is broadly reasonable, a significant chunk of the population goes absolutely apeshit.

Yes, that is a common issue. I think a better understanding of how a government works is necessary.


It's suggested that the triple lock on pensions be removed, with the relatively arbitrary 2.5% increase p.a. dropped. It only made its way into the coalition agreement because they thought it would cost £50m (lol). Look at the difference in funding it would require over the next few parliaments:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/15112/production/_95809268_6ac270c2-f49f-481c-84e3-d4eda10d0fec.jpg

Doesn't look that bad to me tbh. More focus on increasing the national income would be preferred imo.


She suggests that every single child shouldn't get a free lunch

Are school lunches very costly? I think every kid getting a school lunch is ok. Equality and everything.


or that every single household shouldn't get the winter fuel payment, and people go apeshit even though means testing means there's more money (theoretically) for people who actually need it.

The issue is in the theoretically. If they said that they'll cut the payment for people earning over x, but also increase it for people earning under y, then that would be received better. I am sure that was not the plan though.


And then the real winner was the social care policy. I didn't like it, because I'm highly attached to the idea that inheritance shouldn't be taxed, but you had a situation where the left were arguing that the middle and upper classes should have their property wealth protected and money for social care found from elsewhere.

I know nothing about that one but it does sound backwards.


All of these are examples where people are confronted with the idea that public services need to be paid for, and they very much dislike the idea of paying for it themselves. The Labour idea that "only the top 5% are going to pay for it, so you can have all of this and you can have it for free" sounds fantastic - but it's nonsense. We've seen the development of an entire section of the electorate who are simply not prepared to acknowledge that they, or people they know, might actually have to pay for some of it themselves.

I agree in principle. I would much prefer if governments (and candidates) where more honest and just outright said that nice things cost and some of them we will all have to pay for. With that said, the whole 'tax the rich' stuff doesn't come so much from people not wanting to pay for shit. It comes from the extreme inequality that currently exists. People hear about the need to be flexible and the need to tighten their belts and austerity and all that shite while at the same time they see people with obscene fortunes. I mean, we've all seen those 'increase in productivity vs increase in wages' plots, right? How can anyone claim that is ok? So yes, they want those who have exploited the system massively to pay. I am sure that if a government made legitimate efforts towards equality, more people would be willing to pay their share. As it stands, those who have been fucked over don't want to pay, they want those who have profited massively to do so. I do not think that is unreasonable. I also don't think that it is as easy as raising taxes for the rich, fwiw.

[Pepe]

Average lifetime repayments.

I see. Well, raising fees would also fuck those middle earners pretty bad, no? I mean, the poorest are untouched, but no one goes to uni with the intent of remaining poor. Highest earners do get the biggest benefit, but then that doesn't necessarily mean they were rich before they started, just that they are doing well.

In my opinion, grants based on wealth before starting (a bit like financial aid in the US) are a better method. Although if you think that access to higher education is a right (which I am not sure I agree with, but with the current system where it is basically impossible to find a job without a degree, then it probably has to be) then free for everyone has to be the way to go.

[GS]

They may have obscene fortunes, but how do you get at that money?

We tax transactions. If they spend that money buying property or land, it's taxed. If they buy a supercar, the exchequer gets VAT. If they sell shares, we take it through capital gains tax. If they're getting paid a fortune by a company, they get taxed through income tax, national insurance, and employer NIC. If they're a shareholder, the dividends are taxed. If they die, we levy charges on their estate through inheritance tax. If they remit tax back to the UK, it's subject to DTR and international taxation regimes. If they just leave the money sitting in a bank account somewhere to accrue interest, we tax the interest. If they're running it through a company, we levy it through corporation tax.

There are any number of ways that the exchequer claims taxation from them, but short of going in and requisitioning money from their bank account and/or employing a wealth tax where they're required to pay the exchequer a portion of their assets each tax year simply because they have them, there's not a huge amount you can do. If you did employ something like that on anything like a regular basis, they'd just move their assets out of the UK.

[GS]

I see. Well, raising fees would also fuck those middle earners pretty bad, no? I mean, the poorest are untouched, but no one goes to uni with the intent of remaining poor. Highest earners do get the biggest benefit, but then that doesn't necessarily mean they were rich before they started, just that they are doing well.

In my opinion, grants based on wealth before starting (a bit like financial aid in the US) are a better method. Although if you think that access to higher education is a right (which I am not sure I agree with, but with the current system where it is basically impossible to find a job without a degree, then it probably has to be) then free for everyone has to be the way to go.

You don't pay it back until you're earning over £21K (average wage is £26K, so assuming you're earning the average wage you're only paying back £450 a year as the effective 'tax rate' is 9%). It's effectively operating as an additional income tax bracket, and it ensures that higher earners who benefitted from their education are paying back into the system for those who come behind them. If you never earn above 21K, you don't pay anything back and it's written off after 25 or 30 years.

Basically, offering free tuition offers a tax cut to rich graduates who are earning significant sums of money - and it would require either a) redirecting other general taxation into higher education, thus forcing low earner non-graduates to pay for high earning graduates education or b) a significant reduction in available places to limit the funding requirement, and thus reducing access for poorer students.

The Scots have free tuition and you're four times less likely to go to university if you're poor than if you're rich - the gap is only 2.4 in England, so there's clear evidence in the 'local market' that it doesn't work.

[Lewis]

Who actually gets 'fucked over' though? I don't understand that sort of rhetoric.

[Pepe]

Who actually gets 'fucked over' though? I don't understand that sort of rhetoric.

We all have. Wages didn't increase with productivity (they have in fact decreased.) Profits did. Massively. What is there to understand?

[Pepe]

The Scots have free tuition and you're four times less likely to go to university if you're poor than if you're rich - the gap is only 2.4 in England, so there's clear evidence in the 'local market' that it doesn't work.

Can that be explained solely by tuition fee policy?

[GS]

Can that be explained solely by tuition fee policy?

It can, because the SNP have to cap places in order to fund it. By capping the places, grade thresholds have to go up, and grades going up means that wealthier kids from better schools / parents paying for tutors are more likely to get in.

[Pepe]

They may have obscene fortunes, but how do you get at that money?

...

Again, I know 'tax the rich' is not simple, plus as I said probably not the solution. Merely explaining where that attitude stems from. Again, what I would like to see is companies bear their external costs (we're really late to the party on that one, but better late than never.) That generally happens in the way of regulation, which hurts COMPETITIVENESS but I'm ok with that. As for taxes, I do think anything that merely involves the movement of capital (so, both capital gains and dividends) should be taxed like crazy.

As for the whole moving the assets away, that is an issue and one I am not sure how you deal with, because it would need cooperation and there is always some cunt that will ruin it for everyone else. Still, if anyone decides to leave, I'd say good riddance.

[Pepe]

It can, because the SNP have to cap places in order to fund it. By capping the places, grade thresholds have to go up, and grades going up means that wealthier kids from better schools / parents paying for tutors are more likely to get in.

They could use affirmative action. ;)

Or put more money into education so they don't have to cap places. Or even better, make it so that people don't need a degree to get a job.

[GS]

Again, I know 'tax the rich' is not simple, plus as I said probably not the solution. Merely explaining where that attitude stems from. Again, what I would like to see is companies bear their external costs (we're really late to the party on that one, but better late than never.) That generally happens in the way of regulation, which hurts COMPETITIVENESS but I'm ok with that. As for taxes, I do think anything that merely involves the movement of capital (so, both capital gains and dividends) should be taxed like crazy.

As for the whole moving the assets away, that is an issue and one I am not sure how you deal with, because it would need cooperation and there is always some cunt that will ruin it for everyone else. Still, if anyone decides to leave, I'd say good riddance.

If I can draw a worthwhile comparison, Hollande's 75% tax rate in France had to be shelved because it simply wasn't generating the return that was hoped for. It was sitting at something like a quarter of expected revenue, and was an evident deterrent to FDI / other investment. What companies were doing in terms of bonus payments etc. was basically agreeing with the employee to defer payment - they knew it wouldn't last, so they sat on the money and then paid it out later on.

If you make the rates prohibitive, they just won't bother making the transaction and will sit on it until the lack of tax revenue forces a rethink - and then you end up in the exact same position of spending commitments without the commensurate increase in revenues to pay for it. Then it's borrowing, then it's a Tory government, and then it's austerity, and then we're on the same cycle again.

[GS]

They could use affirmative action. ;)

Or put more money into education so they don't have to cap places. Or even better, make it so that people don't need a degree to get a job.

The Scots are already getting a £10bn 'union dividend' under the Barnett formula - they're already ploughing vast sums from the City of London and the south east (basically) into their public services like education and the NHS. There is no alternative under a full-funding model to capping places, because you need to know what you're paying out for the purposes of the budget.

That said, I don't disagree with you that the prevalence of degrees in the jobs market today (many of which are wholly irrelevant to people's ultimate job) isn't a good thing, but it's a direct consequence of increasing access. It's an either / or situation, and I would favour access.

[Pepe]

If you agree to become hostage to the private sector then that happens, yes. There will always be a fight. If you pander to the interests of the private sector, then you always lose.

Again, not a big 'tax the rich' proponent, that's not the solution. Mostly symbolic, if anything.

[GS]

I don't think anybody should pander, but ultimately private enterprise and private individuals pay for public services and treating them as evil is entirely counterproductive. It's something that many people aren't very comfortable recognising, I think.

[Lewis]

We all have. Wages didn't increase with productivity (they have in fact decreased.) Profits did. Massively. What is there to understand?

People who have sought to understand that (decoupling) have significantly downplayed it.

[Pepe]

I don't think anybody should pander, but ultimately private enterprise and private individuals pay for public services and treating them as evil is entirely counterproductive. It's something that many people aren't very comfortable recognising, I think.

Not necessarily evil, but they have definitely exploited a lopsided system and have increasingly controlled it, tilting it even more in their favor.

A similar, but opposite, case is that of Unions. They sure have been treated as evil by the right wing and have been constantly attacked by the right wing.

Come to think of it, one could argue that the total erosion of labor laws in order to keep companies happy could be described as evil.


People who have sought to understand that (decoupling) have significantly downplayed it.

Care to expand?

[Lewis]

You've got the internet mate. It's mostly explained by inequality (not as in THE ONE PER CENT, but different classes of workers emerging since when everyone was just a pleb with a hammer) and other forms of compensation eating into wages (increasing health premiums account for a lot of it in America).

[Pepe]

You've got the internet mate. It's mostly explained by inequality (not as in THE ONE PER CENT, but different classes of workers emerging since when everyone was just a pleb with a hammer) and other forms of compensation eating into wages (increasing health premiums account for a lot of it in America).

Throw some links my way at least.

[Lofty]

Sinn Fein saying DUP coalition contravenes the Good Friday Agreement apparently, May literally willing to let people die to stay in power.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It doesn't, but she's still an idiot for doing it (by the looks of things without thinking it through first).

[GS]

Sinn Fein saying DUP coalition contravenes the Good Friday Agreement apparently, May literally willing to let people die to stay in power.

There is some total horseshit being written, and this is a perfect example of it.

One of the big arguments about getting local institutions back up and running was that we needed a "Northern Irish voice" during Brexit negotiations. Well, the DUP are literally able to collapse the government if they don't get what they want for NI. It provides that effective voice during negotiations. The NI parties all want the same thing, basically - no hard border. The nationalists would probably accept a 'border' in the Irish sea for the purposes of immigration / trade and so forth, but the unionists won't. The issue with any special status is that it contravenes the GFA, which establishes consent. The UK is leaving in full, therefore we're leaving in full. Alliance support special status, but they're basically Lib Dems and have been in a state of deep mourning over the result since last year.

This confidence and supply deal leaves the Shinners on the sidelines - pissing and moaning about everything whilst they categorically refuse to take their seats and thus can't influence anything. The Blairist line that the UK government should represent a more distant fair arbitrator in Northern Ireland hasn't been the case for years now - probably not since the DUP leveraged the GDP of a small country out of the UK government to vote for increased detention periods. Either Northern Ireland is a part of the UK or it isn't - and if our MPs can't act as other MPs do, then there's no point in sending them to Westminster. To say that our MPs can't act as other MPs do is to go against the consent principle of the GFA, which is that we're a full part of the UK until the populace vote otherwise.

The Shinners could address it by not shafting their constituents on "principle, mate" - but when you've been willing to bomb and shoot people for decades, you're probably not in a sound place to argue about these things. I don't see a single reason how you could justify voting for a party which doesn't take its seats, but that's their problem - not the rest of us.

[GS]

It doesn't, but she's still an idiot for doing it (by the looks of things without thinking it through first).

She has no choice, because the numbers don't add up anywhere else. There is literally only one government option available, which is Tory minority with DUP confidence and supply. None of the "progressive" parties are going to vote for her, and if she doesn't have the DUP then we're back to the country which nobody wants.

It's her own fault, of course, but needs must. It's basically just 2010 again, where for all the discussion about different options and rainbow coalitions, there was only one deal on the table which could work - Tory/Lib Dem. I don't see this one lasting for any length of time, frankly, but needs must for the short to medium term.

[Henry]

While GS continues with his wrong economics and his defense of Tory scum and their theocratic chums, have an old DUP leaflet to laugh at.

https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18921684_10156312637148306_5132922055903937053_n.j pg?oh=4610b6611e3edc82846bdc274f9f7d3d&oe=59A674EA

[John]

That leaflet doesn't mention the DUP anywhere, and appears to be old enough to be irrelevant. There was a Tory elected in the sixties running with 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour' on his leaflets, who gives a fuck about that now?

I reckon if this coalition runs for any length of time, which it won't and mustn't, May will have made the Tories completely unelectable for the decade it'll take them to get the smell off. Some of the positions espoused by these people are fully insane.

[Yevrah]

Last night's Question Time was quite interesting, in that the universal thought among the panel was that May seems to be prepared to do almost anything to keep this shitshow on the road, irrespective of the wider damage it might bring.

I didn't remember this, but even John Major apparently wouldn't touch the DUP when it could have helped him.

We need to go back to the polls, have another election and usher in 5 years of Corbyn. The Tories have fucked everything up to the point where that's the only feasible option I can now see.

And why the fuck was article 50 triggered before this election? I mean, for fuck's sake.

[GS]

Not necessarily evil, but they have definitely exploited a lopsided system and have increasingly controlled it, tilting it even more in their favor.

A similar, but opposite, case is that of Unions. They sure have been treated as evil by the right wing and have been constantly attacked by the right wing.

Come to think of it, one could argue that the total erosion of labor laws in order to keep companies happy could be described as evil.

I don't know - this sounds a bit conspiracy theory to me. There have been massive private companies for centuries (the East India company were basically running a country until the Mutiny). You're basically advocating interventionism on a large, institutionalised scale to try and control the labour market - the problem is that the government can't, in my view, do this whilst expecting the private sector to pay for everything as well. They'll just move their operations to countries which are less restrictive / less of a pain to operate in.

One of the reasons I favour low taxation is because it lets companies invest - you trust their self-interest, that they'll put the money back into the economy / labour market because they want to grow and earn higher revenues / profits. The more economic activity, the more transactions, and the more transactions the more tax generated. And it lets the government push a significant cost burden back onto the private sector.

In the context of the UK, there has been no erosion of labour laws - people were pretending in the EU referendum that our workers' rights came from Europe. They didn't - we have significantly better workers' rights enshrined in UK law. If anybody wanted to change them, they'd need to run on a manifesto to change them - which they'd get taken apart for in the press and hammered (you can see the consequence of a terrible manifesto with May). If they tried to do it without a manifesto commitment, the Salisbury Convention would see it blocked in the Lords and they'd be swept away at the next election.

[GS]

Henry's hypocrisy is legitimately staggering.


Last night's Question Time was quite interesting, in that the universal thought among the panel was that May seems to be prepared to do almost anything to keep this shitshow on the road, irrespective of the wider damage it might bring.

I didn't remember this, but even John Major apparently wouldn't touch the DUP when it could have helped him.

We need to go back to the polls, have another election and usher in 5 years of Corbyn. The Tories have fucked everything up to the point where that's the only feasible option I can now see.

And why the fuck was article 50 triggered before this election? I mean, for fuck's sake.

The DUP were significantly less 'mainstream' prior to the St Andrews agreement. After that, they've been in government here. They're not very good, but at least they didn't personally go around planting bombs and shooting people on an industrial scale.

Again, the issue for May is that short of another election, there is no feasible alternative to this. Who else can provide confidence and supply?

[GS]

That leaflet doesn't mention the DUP anywhere, and appears to be old enough to be irrelevant. There was a Tory elected in the sixties running with 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour' on his leaflets, who gives a fuck about that now?

I reckon if this coalition runs for any length of time, which it won't and mustn't, May will have made the Tories completely unelectable for the decade it'll take them to get the smell off. Some of the positions espoused by these people are fully insane.

People only waking up to politics in NI might want to ask themselves why significant numbers of people vote for the DUP. It's not because the DUP are any good - it's because they've been the only effective voice for the union for years now. That and the other side is led by Sinn Fein, who seek to turn every apparent dip in DUP support into evidence for another fucking border poll.

The idea that Corbyn can praise actual murderers and have it be okay whilst the Tories operating a loose confidence and supply arrangement with legitimately elected representatives from this part of the world and have it be EVIL is a genuine laugh.

[Henry]

People support the DUP for a variety of reasons. Often it's because of their 16th century social views or because of their extreme sectarianism.

[John]

People only waking up to politics in NI might want to ask themselves why significant numbers of people vote for the DUP. It's not because the DUP are any good - it's because they've been the only effective voice for the union for years now. That and the other side is led by Sinn Fein, who seek to turn every apparent dip in DUP support into evidence for another fucking border poll.

The idea that Corbyn can praise actual murderers and have it be okay whilst the Tories operating a loose confidence and supply arrangement with legitimately elected representatives from this part of the world and have it be EVIL is a genuine laugh.

It's not evil, it's just incredibly stupid for a party plenty of people already think is homophobic and racist to go in to coalition with a party which is explicitly both of those things. I don't think they're going to get the Tories to agree to creationism being taught in British schools or kettling all the gays into the ocean, but the longer this goes on the more of their headbanging, seventeenth century lunacy will come out and the next time there's an election it'll be the easiest and most effective attack ever to ping the Tories with those beliefs.

[Lewis]

I think we've learned this week that it doesn't particularly matter who you associate with.

[Kikó]

And why the fuck was article 50 triggered before this election? I mean, for fuck's sake.

Or more, why even have an election?

Posturing against Europe is pointless. Just negotiate and get the best we can and keep negotiating beyond the two years.

[Gray Fox]

Given that Labour did much better than expected at this election and is still some way off challenging for a majority, is there a point in another election?

I understand the Tories number of seats could well be reduced, but we'd just be looking at a hung parlaiment again, surely?

[Spikey M]

Given that Labour did much better than expected at this election and is still some way off challenging for a majority, is there a point in another election?

I understand the Tories number of seats could well be reduced, but we'd just be looking at a hung parlaiment again, surely?

Only if the youth could be arsed to turn up again.

[GS]

People support the DUP for a variety of reasons. Often it's because of their 16th century social views or because of their extreme sectarianism.

Or because they're by far the most effective voice in favour of the union, and a high vote for the DUP tends to discredit continued republican calls for a border poll and / or other insidious measures to try and subtly detach Northern Ireland from the mainland (e.g. special status). I know plenty of people who vote for them on the binary issue of the constitutional position.


Only if the youth could be arsed to turn up again.

It would depend if the new Tory leader was credible. I keep changing my mind on who's best. I'm not convinced on the Floyd line that it's Boris.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

At least Boris wouldn't be a boring fuck. Every cloud and all that.

[Giggles]

Why can Corbyn not praise murderers, but it's ok for May to form a government with murderers? Is there something I'm missing or is it just GS being ultra bigot yet again?

[Henry]

When the Quinn brothers were murdered in their beds by a petrol bomb throwing mob protesting a decision about a parade, the DUP said that it was understandable.

But that's okay, because the union.

[John]

When the Quinn brothers were murdered in their beds by a petrol bomb throwing mob protesting a decision about a parade, the DUP said that it was understandable.

But that's okay, because the union.

Which of their current membership said that?

[Lewis]

Ex-terrorists gone legitimate are different from active ones.

[GS]

When the Quinn brothers were murdered in their beds by a petrol bomb throwing mob protesting a decision about a parade, the DUP said that it was understandable.

But that's okay, because the union.

The Orange Order's Co Armagh Chaplain Rev William Bingham expressed his sorrow to his loyalist congregation: "No road is worth a life let alone three lives of three little boys." Local MP and leader of the DUP Ian Paisley has visited the scene and described the murders as "diabolical" and "repugnant".

So no, they didn't. This hypocrisy is enraging. Wor Jez routinely honoured the IRA. But that's okay, because austerity.

[GS]

Ex-terrorists gone legitimate are different from active ones.

It's also about being able to deliver. Corbyn turning up to commemorate the IRA dead isn't the same as the Thatcher or Major governments opening secret back channels to work out what's needed to stop it happening. He wasn't interesting in stopping it unless it involved the unconditional surrender of Britain.

I fear there's a desperate lack of understanding about this amongst the UK-wide population.

[Magic]

'Nawbags' is a new one. :D

[Reg]

Why can Corbyn not praise murderers, but it's ok for May to form a government with murderers? Is there something I'm missing or is it just GS being ultra bigot yet again?
GS has blue-tinted glasses on at all times. He's the Alan Pardew criticising a refereeing decision of politics.

[GS]

GS has blue-tinted glasses on at all times. He's the Alan Pardew criticising a refereeing decision of politics.

You are literally clueless.

[Lofty]

So May needs none of her MPs to rebel over future divisive votes or they won't pass, but she can't do anything if they do rebel and they may rebel if it is unpopular in their constituency because more than a couple have seen their majorities evaporate. Delicious.

[GS]

She can get away with six, as outlined. In the main, she'll get them on board for any major initiative by turning it into a confidence vote whereby they'd crash the government if they voted against it. It was how John Major managed to wedge Maastricht through despite the bastards.

[GS]

873645501438144512

[Henry]

The Orange Order's Co Armagh Chaplain Rev William Bingham expressed his sorrow to his loyalist congregation: "No road is worth a life let alone three lives of three little boys." Local MP and leader of the DUP Ian Paisley has visited the scene and described the murders as "diabolical" and "repugnant".

So no, they didn't. This hypocrisy is enraging. Wor Jez routinely honoured the IRA. But that's okay, because austerity.

Okay, let's correct that since I mixed two things up.

In the murder of the three Quinn boys by a loyalist mob, the DUP role was limited to merely inciting rioters and precipitating the attack - before we got the aforementioned crocodile tears, swiftly followed by the proviso that the IRA had done worse.

It was the case of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - car bombs that killed 33 people - that the DUP described as "perfectly understandable".

And while we're on that, those are among a very large number of incidents where collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the British state is suspected. So spare us the bullshit about such contacts being limited to those required for back-channel negotiations.

[7om]

Christ, having Boris in the cabinet is enough but PM? No, I really don't want that. May has fucked up, we can all agree to that, but I can't see how Boris Johnson is the answer to this mess. He wouldn't even need a manifesto or policy fuck up in another election re-run like May, he'd just drop himself in it with some incredibly stupid comment and people will jump all over him. A mini-Trump, almost.

I don't even like May, but I don't want her to go. As if we haven't had enough political disturbance over the last two years the last thing we need is a coup now.

[GS]

Can you provide evidence of who said the Dublin and Monaghan car bombings were 'perfectly understandable'?

I can find literally one example of that turn of phrase, which was an obscure city councillor referring to fire bombings by the UFF in 1991.

[GS]

Christ, having Boris in the cabinet is enough but PM? No, I really don't want that. May has fucked up, we can all agree to that, but I can't see how Boris Johnson is the answer to this mess. He wouldn't even need a manifesto or policy fuck up in another election re-run like May, he'd just drop himself in it with some incredibly stupid comment and people will jump all over him. A mini-Trump, almost.

I don't even like May, but I don't want her to go. As if we haven't had enough political disturbance over the last two years the last thing we need is a coup now.

Having had time to think about it, the collapse of the current government has the potential to destroy the country. A Corbyn premiership could legitimately ruin the country through basket case economics and a disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy. Frankly, everything must be on the table to ensure the government lasts five years and there is sufficient opportunity to reestablish credibility before he has any chance of taking over.

[Lewis]

The difference is whether they are currently doing it. Martin McGuinness in government was a legitimate figure. Martin McGuinness running around with a machine gun under his coat was not.

[Pepe]

Destroy the country. :harold:

[Boydy]

If Corbyn's economics are 'basket case' then why do a load of actual economists support his proposals (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jun/03/the-big-issue-labour-manifesto-what-economy-needs)?

[Lewis]

Unless you can get 364 signatures those things are void.

[Reg]

Destroy the country. :harold:
You heard it here first, Pepe. "Austerity, cuts to defence, cuts to police, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is fine and dandy BUT disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy will destroy the country!"

[Pepe]

You heard it here first, Pepe. "Austerity, cuts to defence, cuts to police, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is fine and dandy BUT disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy will destroy the country!"

Don't forget the basket case economics.

[Lewis]

Under normal circumstances you could probably ride them all out, but if we're CRASHING OUT of Europe then probably not so much.

[GS]

It was the case of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings - car bombs that killed 33 people - that the DUP described as "perfectly understandable".


Can you provide evidence of who said the Dublin and Monaghan car bombings were 'perfectly understandable'?

I can find literally one example of that turn of phrase, which was an obscure city councillor referring to fire bombings by the UFF in 1991.

You can answer this when you're ready, Henry, mate.

As a pre-empt, you can then explain how, assuming you can support your claim to begin with, it would differ from Wor Jez blaming the Poppy Day Massacre on the British 'occupation'.

[GS]

Under normal circumstances you could probably ride them all out, but if we're CRASHING OUT of Europe then probably not so much.

The budget deficit is already, what, £52bn in FY17? Their massive increase in spending isn't properly costed, and you'd never generate the income needed to offset their spending increases - never mind the already significant deficit that exists.

We need to be slashing tax and regulation as we leave the EU to ensure continued competitiveness.

[7om]

You heard it here first, Pepe. "Austerity, cuts to defence, cuts to police, and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is fine and dandy BUT disastrous defence, security, and foreign policy will destroy the country!"

What cuts to defense? At least in NATO we're one of the highest spenders as a percentage of GDP.

I can only comment on this anecdotally but I have a couple of members of my family in the police and it's needed a clear out for a long while. Whether that clear out justified 20,000 odd officers going, I don't know. But there was a lot of evidence to suggest you had PCs with 25 years service running down their final five years doing civilian jobs and taking it easy.

[Lewis]

The budget deficit is already, what, £52bn in FY17? Their massive increase in spending isn't properly costed, and you'd never generate the income needed to offset their spending increases - never mind the already significant deficit that exists.

We need to be slashing tax and regulation as we leave the EU to ensure continued competitiveness.

Which is the problem I think. You can't really whinge about the MAGIC MONEY TREE whilst you're still borrowing that much yourself. I think it's far too much, but you can see why people wouldn't be put off by the thought of it being seventy.

[Pepe]

The budget deficit is already, what, £52bn in FY17?

A couple of questions:

How much deficit is ok? How much would the deficit need to increase to 'ruin the country?' Or how much do you need to decrease it to not ruin it?

Let's imagine the deficit suddenly becomes zero. Now what? What would be the big benefit of that?

[Pepe]

Which is the problem I think. You can't really whinge about the MAGIC MONEY TREE whilst you're still borrowing that much yourself. I think it's far too much, but you can see why people wouldn't be put off by the thought of it being seventy.

You can answer my questions too. They're honest questions btw. ;)

[7om]

A couple of questions:

How much deficit is ok? How much would the deficit need to increase to 'ruin the country?' Or how much do you need to decrease it to not ruin it?

Let's imagine the deficit suddenly becomes zero. Now what? What would be the big benefit of that?

Less interest repayments on the debt, I'd assume.

[GS]

Which is the problem I think. You can't really whinge about the MAGIC MONEY TREE whilst you're still borrowing that much yourself. I think it's far too much, but you can see why people wouldn't be put off by the thought of it being seventy.

The alternative for the Tories would be to slash things back further, which would - of course - lead to riots and outright seething. It comes back to what I said previously - people aren't prepared to face reality and make hard choices. They want free stuff and other people to pay for it.

The Labour government basically offered people a completely unsustainable programme for the country, and the Tories weren't prepared to properly grasp the nettle because it was too politically toxic / Nick Clegg was too busy vetoing it.

[Boydy]

873671760788545536

873679185734242304

http://i.imgur.com/5kfz7kn.gif

[7om]

873671760788545536



What utter drivel. What's the difference between now and last Thursday? And yet we're supposed to believe there'd be 4-5% changes in Tory / Labour voting? Sure.

[Lewis]

The alternative for the Tories would be to slash things back further, which would - of course - lead to riots and outright seething. It comes back to what I said previously - people aren't prepared to face reality and make hard choices. They want free stuff and other people to pay for it.

The Labour government basically offered people a completely unsustainable programme for the country, and the Tories weren't prepared to properly grasp the nettle because it was too politically toxic / Nick Clegg was too busy vetoing it.

You're right, but I think that would apply to a proper socialist programme as well if it started threatening things that Alarm Clock Britain holds dear. If house prices (particularly in the South) started tumbling people would seethe every bit as much as the 24 hours to save the NHS maniacs do.

[GS]

A couple of questions:

How much deficit is ok? How much would the deficit need to increase to 'ruin the country?' Or how much do you need to decrease it to not ruin it?

Let's imagine the deficit suddenly becomes zero. Now what? What would be the big benefit of that?

It depends which study you want to read and / or believe. The key is debt, rather than deficit. The UK's debt as of 2016 was almost 90% of GDP. Higher debt (particularly when pushing towards 100% of GDP) has a negative impact on long-term economic growth. There is some discussion of cut-off points here (http://www.heritage.org/debt/report/high-debt-real-drag). Higher debt levels can create issues around interest repayments (higher interest costs, therefore reduced flexibility for government spending), future borrowing ability, and economic growth. We're already paying tens of billions in interest repayments (net £28b was the most recent figure I've read)

Therefore, given our current debt levels, if we borrow more, growth is likely to be lower, your tax revenues will go down, and your deficit inevitably increases. Thus it leads to further debt increase, further growth slowdown, lower investment, fewer jobs, more welfare spending, more deficit etc. etc. etc.

Corbyn's policies are inherently anti-business, so you'd have reduced international confidence in the UK market for investment. Increasing the CT rate would probably lead to reduced tax take as companies move operations to less onerous tax regimes, and you'd end up with job losses and significant unemployment which you would have to fund welfare payments for (by borrowing more, no less).

In short, he's basically advocating massive unfunded spending increases, a direct 'attack' on the private enterprise that pays for it (through new union laws and an overnight significant increase in taxation on corporations / the wealthy) - and he's doing so at a time when the debt is already sky high and there's significant uncertainty over the life of the parliament owing to the departure from the EU.

It's a toxic programme for government - and highly irresponsible, because it will end up needing cleaned up at some point and you're just off the back of young voters being told that none of this matters and all we need to do is repossess a few mansions to pay for it all.

We've infantilised public discourse to such an extent that Wor Jez can get through an entire campaign without any serious scrutiny of his economic policy. If he had a chance to implement it, we'll be looking at a Tory Chancellor desperately slashing back tax rates and implementing swingeing cuts in the first year of the following parliament to try and restore some semblance of common sense.

[Pepe]

It depends which study you want to read and / or believe. The key is debt, rather than deficit. The UK's debt as of 2016 was almost 90% of GDP. Higher debt (particularly when pushing towards 100% of GDP) has a negative impact on long-term economic growth. There is some discussion of cut-off points here (http://www.heritage.org/debt/report/high-debt-real-drag). Higher debt levels can create issues around interest repayments (higher interest costs, therefore reduced flexibility for government spending), future borrowing ability, and economic growth. We're already paying tens of billions in interest repayments (net £28b was the most recent figure I've read)

Cheers for the link. Will have to check the actual studies, because that summary makes it seem like those studies are merely observational. Coming from the Heritage Foundation immediately turns me skeptic, but that is the kind of stuff I was looking for.


Therefore, given our current debt levels, if we borrow more, growth is likely to be lower, your tax revenues will go down, and your deficit inevitably increases. Thus it leads to further debt increase, further growth slowdown, lower investment, fewer jobs, more welfare spending, more deficit etc. etc. etc.

Surely that depends on what you use the money you borrow for, no?

[Gray Fox]

What utter drivel. What's the difference between now and last Thursday? And yet we're supposed to believe there'd be 4-5% changes in Tory / Labour voting? Sure.

The biggest problem we heard from Corbyn was that he was 'unelectable.' Then we had a situation like one were in a public setting people are asked to put their hands up. Getting the first couple up is the hard bit, then other people see this as okay and do it themselves. Now he's had a decent/good result, he may swing even more votes.

Plus you've now got the situation wherein May will literally sell her soul to keep hold of power.

I imagine he'd gain even more seats back in Scotland if he promised there'd be no Indyref2. That's how I see it anyway.

[Spikey M]

I imagine he'd lose more than he gained if he promised indyref2. People are sick of that shit both sides of the border, hence the SNP's collapse.

[phonics]

I would have thought GS would have dropped the condescending tone and calling people literally clueless when every piece of political analysis he's posted since 2015 has been wrong.

PS. the superior governing option that GS has nailed himself to the mast of this time has apparently collapsed and the Cons will not be getting in bed with the DUP. Another masterclass from GS.

Just because your posts are longer than everyone's doesn't make them right. Hang on, are you Pavel?

[Magic]

The biggest problem we heard from Corbyn was that he was 'unelectable.' Then we had a situation like one were in a public setting people are asked to put their hands up. Getting the first couple up is the hard bit, then other people see this as okay and do it themselves. Now he's had a decent/good result, he may swing even more votes.

Plus you've now got the situation wherein May will literally sell her soul to keep hold of power.

I imagine he'd gain even more seats back in Scotland if he promised there'd be no Indyref2. That's how I see it anyway.

I called that a while back. The silly old cunt won't though.

[Yevrah]

Corbyn absolutely nailing it on Andrew Marr.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I keep saying this but Boris needs to knife May and then do a humble cross-party Brexit tea party and £100 million a week for NHS.

[Yevrah]

He hasn't got the minerals.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The entire cabinet and every Tory MP will be telling him to do it as we speak. It'll become irresistible. He's the only person of significant enough stature and charisma to be able to keep the show on the road.

He has many flaws but we've reached a point where the country needs him.

[GS]

I would have thought GS would have dropped the condescending tone and calling people literally clueless when every piece of political analysis he's posted since 2015 has been wrong.

PS. the superior governing option that GS has nailed himself to the mast of this time has apparently collapsed and the Cons will not be getting in bed with the DUP. Another masterclass from GS.

Just because your posts are longer than everyone's doesn't make them right. Hang on, are you Pavel?

I've always said confidence and supply, which is what they're discussing. Some of the commentary on the DUP on here has been misguided at best, or outright wrong at worst. Henry, it seems, has even taken to making quotes up to try and discredit them.

There is no other deal available given the mathematics of the parliament, and the Tories aren't going back to the country yet.

[Spikey M]

Johnson and Trump. So this is how it ends.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Getting into bed with any Northern Ireland party is idiotic. You're all absolute spastics of one sort or another.

[Waffdon]

Our country needs Boris Johnson?

"Hello darkness my old friend"

[phonics]

There is no other deal available given the mathematics of the parliament, and the Tories aren't going back to the country yet.

They should though.

[GS]

Cheers for the link. Will have to check the actual studies, because that summary makes it seem like those studies are merely observational. Coming from the Heritage Foundation immediately turns me skeptic, but that is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Surely that depends on what you use the money you borrow for, no?

Borrowing for capital investment is much less of a problem, but we've been plugging holes in current spending since 2002 with borrowing and would end up having to do that to an even greater extent under Corbyn. His tax rises won't generate the income they think, and there's some pretty sketchy justifications for other tax rises in there too.

We'd be up shit creek by the end of the parliament. The last two Labour governments have brought with them the financial crisis and an IMF bailout, so you can only imagine what the hard left would do.

[GS]

They should though.

Maybe after the summer, when the dust has settled a little bit and they can get on with the regicide properly.

I would suggest that this is somewhat ominous for her:

873833832990089217

[Jimmy Floyd]

I want at least 3 more elections before Christmas.

[GS]

PMQs is in about ten days, isn't it?

Good fucking grief.

Wor Jez isn't suddenly going to start offering effective opposition either, but some of the questions from competent parliamentarians could be gruesome.

[Kikó]

The Labour government allowed London to become relevant in the financial world and helped create the environment where we are today.

[Lewis]

That's a bit like saying they 'allowed' the Premier League to become massive.

[Bam]

Yep, they did that also.

[Kikó]

Well not quite. They deregulated and made sure a light touch was in place which meant private equity, hedge funds and investment banks wanted to trade here. It all went to shit because the CDS wasn't actually removing risk in the system and banks found that liquidity is always king.

[Shindig]

Like how the US allowed 9/11 to happen.

[Kikó]

Jet fuel doesn't melt steel.

[Lewis]

I would have thought that most of it was in place already ('Big Bang', London Docklands Development Corporation, centuries of then-suppressed expertise) to accommodate what was incoming at that time. Not ballsing it up is great, but not particularly genius.

[Henry]

Henry, it seems, has even taken to making quotes up to try and discredit them.

The quote is from Paisleys daughter, an elected representative (obscure lol) about a bombing in Dublin. And her father spent decades inciting and flirting with loyalist terrorists, repeatedly blaming their attacks on the victims. There are a lot of other such quotes out there, so I have no need to be inventing anything.

Well can of course revisit your false claim that SAS killings in Gibraltar involved armed IRA members, if you want to get sticky on details.

[GS]

The quote is from Paisleys daughter, an elected representative (obscure lol) about a bombing in Dublin. And her father spent decades inciting and flirting with loyalist terrorists, repeatedly blaming their attacks on the victims. There are a lot of other such quotes out there, so I have no need to be inventing anything.

Well can of course revisit your false claim that SAS killings in Gibraltar involved armed IRA members, if you want to get sticky on details.

Paisley's daughter left politics in the mid-nineties, for fuck sake. So not only is she obscure (or, if you will, completely irrelevant) in the context of the current DUP team, but her statement was in relation to incendiary devices by the UFF in 1991 and nothing to do with the Dublin or Monaghan bombings in the seventies. You've basically taken a quote from someone who left politics 20+ years ago and applied to a murder. That was wrong, so you transferred it to to the Dublin / Monaghan bombings. That was wrong too. You've made it up, basically. Well done.

I'm not prepared to defend some of the DUP's unpalatable views, nor will I pretend that they're whiter than white. But there is a huge difference between the Conservatives doing a confidence and supply arrangement with legitimately elected representatives of the Westminster parliament (particularly where the Tories aren't making any concessions to the DUP's social policies implemented in devolved areas) and Jeremy Corbyn meeting IRA bombers and Martin McGuinness / Gerry Adams when they were running the IRA and masterminding a campaign to kill British citizens.

Still, austerity. So it doesn't matter.

[Boydy]

There's a survation poll out that has remaining in the EU in the majority now.

What a fucking mess. :D

[GS]

They're going to be rather disappointed when they realise Labour also support chucking the single market.

[Henry]

Since it's apparently okay to defend bombs in Dublin, can anyone identify these two gentlemen?

http://www.anphoblacht.com/files/old-images/2005/08/04/billy-wright_willie-McCrea.jpg

Or this guy?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/S0g0uYZIr9I/AAAAAAAAMYI/jfC0aFgPBaU/s400/DUP-Peter-Robinson-WithGun.jpg

And why did Arlene Foster meet the leader of the UDA during the election campaign, two days after they'd murdered someone? Was it to discuss the support that the UDA offered to the DUP?

[Henry]

Oh, and a crucial question here. Who did you vote for in this election GS?

[Giggles]

I must admit, I didn't know fuck all about Irish politics until the last few days. I know of the IRA but not really anything else. Can anyone do a summary of it all? Like a quick simple one. Is Sin Fein IRA? I don't quite get it all and I'm not going to pretend to.

You will never get a straight truthful unbiased answer here, or anywhere else probably, to that one.

The main thing to know is that every politician there is a terrorist, ex terrorist, or involved with terrorists. And that every person thinks that only the 'other side' ever did anything wrong.

[Offshore Toon]

You will never get a straight truthful unbiased answer here, or anywhere else probably, to that one.

The main thing to know is that every politician there is a terrorist, ex terrorist, or involved with terrorists. And that every person thinks that only the 'other side' ever did anything wrong.
GS and Henry make sense, but Boydy must feel so out of place in Northern Ireland.

[Giggles]

GS and Henry make sense, but Boydy must feel so out of place in Northern Ireland.

They make no sense as they only post from viewpoint. You're never getting the whole story from them, just whatever bigotry they were force fed by families and schools when the were young. It's why the place will always remain a cesspit.

[Henry]

What bigotry do I espouse? And what do you know of where I grew up?

[GS]

Since it's apparently okay to defend bombs in Dublin, can anyone identify these two gentlemen?

And why did Arlene Foster meet the leader of the UDA during the election campaign, two days after they'd murdered someone? Was it to discuss the support that the UDA offered to the DUP?

I didn't say what she she said was okay - I accused you of making it up by ascribing it a completely different incident, which you've been unable to disprove. At best, you've got it mixed up in your head, at worst you've outright lied.


Oh, and a crucial question here. Who did you vote for in this election GS?

I voted for the DUP in the 2016 Assembly Election. I didn't vote for them in 2017 Assembly Election, because their handling of RHI was diabolical. I voted for the UUP and transferred to other moderate parties (Alliance, SDLP, Greens). The result was a massive increase in the Sinn Fein (not SDLP) vote from the nationalist side, and reinvigorated calls for a border poll. I thus voted for the DUP at the general on the single issue of the union, although to say that I regretted feeling the need to do so would be an understatement.

[GS]

I must admit, I didn't know fuck all about Irish politics until the last few days. I know of the IRA but not really anything else. Can anyone do a summary of it all? Like a quick simple one. Is Sin Fein IRA? I don't quite get it all and I'm not going to pretend to.

Sinn Fein were the political wing of the IRA - so up until the ceasefire in the mid-nineties and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, high-ranking Sinn Fein officials were also moonlighting as IRA commanders. McGuinness was northern commander of the IRA whilst a high-ranking Shinner.

They still are the political wing of the IRA, although the organisation itself is pretty much disbanded at this point.

[Henry]

Right so we've now confirmed that you repeatedly vote for a party which associates with terrorists despite loudly berating Jeremy Corbyn for the same thing.

And just to put it out there again, I'm not a Sinn Fein voter, and won't be in the future, specifically because of their being murdering bastards.

[Lewis]

You voted for them in the past didn't you? Didn't you know that then?

[Henry]

I did on one occasion when I was about 18. I'd like to think I've grown up somewhat since then.

[GS]

The absolute state of that.

[Boydy]

GS and Henry make sense, but Boydy must feel so out of place in Northern Ireland.
How do you mean?

[Offshore Toon]

How do you mean?
I imagine everybody is incredibly uptight and angry.

[Boydy]

:D

There are quite a few like that, I suppose, yeah.

[GS]

I was referring to his attempted equivocation three posts up, where voting for the DUP in 2017 is the equivalent of inviting murders to the House of Commons several weeks after their organisation attempted to kill his fellow MPs in Brighton. You know, that sort of romantic terrorism that the left love.

[Byron]

Don't start equating lefties like me with loving terrorism.

[Henry]

Sorry, but did Arlene Foster not meet with the leader of the UDA two days after they committed a murder? And did the UDA not back the DUP at the election?

You have your blinkers on here.

[Kikó]

Already the peace treaty is on the ropes.

[Byron]

But that's okay because BREXIT.

[Magic]

In lieu of all this, it really is making Cameron look like the most selfish, egotistical, arrogant cunt that's ever been in charge of our country.

[Jimmy Floyd]

He was a complacent wanker (May isn't complacent, just awful).

[Mazuuurk]

Random question here, but how is it that there are never ant sort of random extreme parties that have some traditionally, say right wing ideas, but not in other regards?

For instance imagine a party who hates immigrants but loves homosexuals and abortion, but also wants very low taxes etc.
Why is it always seemingly a "full package" deal?

[Magic]

Have you heard about left and right wing, Maz?

[Magic]

He was a complacent wanker (May isn't complacent, just awful).

Look at the fall out from that single decision though.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It wasn't really a decision, he was forced into it. And rightly so, given the result. It was his pathetic negotiations and IN campaign which cost him.

[Jimmy Floyd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40237813

So on one hand you have Labour accusing the Tories of a 'dodgy' deal with the DUP, and on the other hand you have McDonnell openly hoping that the DUP votes with Labour on the Queen's Speech and not with the Tories. They're so useless.

[Magic]

It wasn't really a decision, he was forced into it. And rightly so, given the result. It was his pathetic negotiations and IN campaign which cost him.

Nobody is forced in to anything. He was a spineless coward. Didn't he only get that majority by promising a vote on Europe to steal UKIP voters?

Also same as the tragic NO/BETTERTOGETHER campaign. Absolute cunts.

[phonics]

After spending 1.2 mil on negative ads to no effect
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/10/tories-spent-1200000-on-negative-anti-jeremy-corbyn-social-media-adverts-6699774/?ito=twitter

And spending another 100k a month + expenses on this idiot from America:
https://twitter.com/Messina2012

I'm not sure I trust that the Tories do know how to spend money better than Labour. Ken Loach did his stuff for a fiver and a rollup.

[niko_cee]

Has negative campaigning ever been really effective in the UK? It always strikes me as an affront to basic British sensibility. We're not big into a hectoring/bullying approach and favour the underdog more often than not. I suppose Milliband got it, but he did more harm to himself with his campaign (being awkward, The Edstone) than any of the attack stuff, I would imagine. And even then it was hardly a Tory landslide in that election and more of a case of SNP explosion.

May as well have doctored those 1997 ads to Old Labour, Old Danger if they were going to go down the attack route.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It isn't, but they are obsessed with hiring in Americans, particularly anyone associated with Obama, and they fuck it up every time for that exact reason.

[GS]

It's going to be some time until the political world gets over its Obama obsession.

On the referendum, Dave called it for party reasons but it was still fair to have one. UKIP "won" the European elections in 2014, and the fact that leave won shows there was a considerable body of opinion that supported the position. A position on is constitutionally key and wasn't represented in parliament.

You could have got away without one if we'd put the constitutional changes from Maastricht and Lisbon to the country, but the political classes were too scared they'd lose. They that soweth the wind etc.

[phonics]

I'm sad to inform you that Lord Buckethead is now crap

874201319665545216

[Jimmy Floyd]

John Oliver in making funny things unfunny shock.

[John]

They brought him out for ten seconds right at the end and had John Oliver suggesting sending him to Brussels as Brexit negotiator. Aside from that it was just footage from the count and that clip where he calls the negotiations a shitshow. He fucking dabbed and remained great, so he can survive that.

[Mazuuurk]

Have you heard about left and right wing, Maz?

Yeah yeah, I know what politics are, alright.

What I mean is there are always a bunch of these random parties in every country that have like ONE agenda but aren't too fuzzed about other issues.
Now these parties often seem to lean towards the left in their main issue, such as Piracy or Environmental advocates, who just sort of add in a bunch of other stuff.

On typically right-wing ideals though, this never seems to happen. It's never as if a party is fucking furious about immigration policy but actually OK with most other stuff, there always seems to be some sort of "fuck everyone" package that they have to base their manifesto on.


They are all nuts either way, obviously, but still.

[phonics]

The Scottish UKIP leader has announced he's running for the full leadership. He looks exactly as how you imagine

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3121334/thumbs/o-DAVID-COBURN-570.jpg?1

[phonics]

Queens Speech to be delayed because the Strong and Stable Coalition can't agree what's in it.

[Spammer]

I'm sad to inform you that Lord Buckethead is now crap

874201319665545216

Is that Scott Bryan from Buzzfeed?

I went to uni with him. Nice bloke.

[niko_cee]

One of the reasons for the delay is also believed to be because the speech has to be written on goat's skin parchment paper, which takes a few days to dry - and the Tory negotiations with the DUP mean it cannot be ready in time.


:face:

[Magic]

:D

Fucking hell. What a set of pretentious cunts.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That is why we are the best country in the world.

[phonics]

And I thought having a Monarch announce government policy was overly traiditonal.

[Disco]

If you have the option of goat skin parchment over normal paper then you should absolutely take it and anyone who says they wouldn't is a big dirty fibber.

[Lewis]

It's actually the best thing to use if you want the documents to last forever.

[Reg]

Google Docs probz better.

[Henry]

In that case it's a good thing that future archaeologists will have full information about the short-lived Tory oligarchy of 2017.

[Kikó]

The Scottish UKIP leader has announced he's running for the full leadership. He looks exactly as how you imagine

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3121334/thumbs/o-DAVID-COBURN-570.jpg?1

Fun fact: he's the only question time participant who has yet to be clapped for one of his points. #draught

[John]

'Oligarchy'. :D You're a maniac, Henry.

Presumably they mean the ink takes a few days to dry on the parchment, otherwise why wouldn't they have a stockpile of that stuff ready to go, or at least produce some a few days in advance of the election. That's a properly daft reason for things to be delayed, since they could just write the speech on some normal paper or a teleprompter then reproduce it on the proper stuff for archiving, but I like that they're going all out on the tradition.

[bruhnaldo]

Holy shit you guys weren't joking. The goat skin paper is a legit thing. I fucking love Britain.

[GS]

She's managed to survive the 1922 Committee, so they'll presumably be letting her carry on until it's convenient for regicide.

Fuck knows when that'll be. The VENGEANCE of the electorate when Brexit inevitably goes south will be something to behold - we'll have Caroline Lucas as Prime Minister and London declaring independence.

[Waffdon]

#DUPMovies on Twitter. Hahahah

[Magic]

I love the Joe ones too. And the BBC3 ones.

Can't touch Parliawint though...

:henn0rz:

[Jimmy Floyd]

I had a great idea ages ago for a dystopian movie/novel where London and the university cities have literally declared independence and run a leftie luvvie utopia, whilst the rest of the country decays into an anarchic mess which hangs foreigners. Sadly it'll never see the light of day now because it's FUCKING HAPPENING.

[GS]

It doesn't help that our political classes are clowns - from all parties. I doubt they have it in them not to fall to pieces during the negotiations as well.

[Lewis]

Luvvistan would bankrupt itself within weeks, at which point it would have to start stoking civil war in places like Leeds and Durham.

[Henry]

Austerity is over, says The Times headline. Causing the Tories to abandon the worst of their policies is a pretty good sign.

[GS]

I'm assuming there would be massive population transfers in such a scenario, so presumably it ends up like some sort of Partition of India shitfest.

[GS]

Austerity is over, says The Times headline. Causing the Tories to abandon the worst of their policies is a pretty good sign.

We'll just have to have it again from 2027 when this period of overspending inevitably leads to our piling on more debt.

The Tories are, however, nothing if not flexible when the prospect of losing power heaves into view - everything must be on the table to prevent the reds getting anywhere near power.

[Jimmy Floyd]

They should just do the fucking NHS £350 million thing. The most opposition that will generate is Charles Moore losing his shit in his Notes column in the Spectator.

[GS]

They should just do the fucking NHS £350 million thing. The most opposition that will generate is Charles Moore losing his shit in his Notes column in the Spectator.

In for a penny, in for a pound. An extra £20bn on the deficit, which we can fund by taxing Jeremy Corbyn's ego.

[Lewis]

I'm assuming there would be massive population transfers in such a scenario, so presumably it ends up like some sort of Partition of India shitfest.

Eventually, I suppose. They could all be agreed on the ground after Brexit Britain has somewhere like Norwich under siege for years, or when Luvvistan tries to force a supply route from London through to the North West.