A Horse Named Stranger Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 19.10.2017 at 8:41 PM, Werthead said: Once Brexit is concluded, I suspect we'll see a lot of the same ultra-free-market-espousing hardcore Tories turning their full firepower on the NHS. This has always been their long-term goal: get out from Europe, get rid of the NHS, reduce the state to the size of a small pea (with them firmly inside it, of course) and retire to the boards of the newly set-up health companies. On a logical level is there any other outcome? Assuming Brexit proceeds, and a Norway like solution (single market access without a say on the matter, with free movement of people) is not sellable to the Brexiteers, that would mean you would lose access to the single market, most of the existing free trade agreements will go out of the window, and WTO trading is not anywhere near an equivalent solution, and with a loss of banking passporting rights the City of London will take a hit (and thus the UKs main industry/tax source), it somehow looks like the NHS (like many other public services) simply looks somewhat unaffordable. Not to mention increased costs of living due to inflation. And I somewhat doubt there will be much left after a hard brexit for a Labour goverment to salvage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Notone said: On a logical level is there any other outcome? Assuming Brexit proceeds, and a Norway like solution (single market access without a say on the matter, with free movement of people) is not sellable to the Brexiteers, that would mean you would lose access to the single market, most of the existing free trade agreements will go out of the window, and WTO trading is not anywhere near an equivalent solution, and with a loss of banking passporting rights the City of London will take a hit (and thus the UKs main industry/tax source), it somehow looks like the NHS (like many other public services) simply looks somewhat unaffordable. Not to mention increased costs of living due to inflation. And I somewhat doubt there will be much left after a hard brexit for a Labour goverment to salvage. Exactly. The strategic vagueness from Labour has been surprisingly effective but I think they need to be stronger in opposing a hard Brexit and a crash-out and insisting that we get a better deal, even if that means stumping up more cash. I'm surprised that no-one has floated the idea that Britain will simply leave the EU at the end of the current fiscal period. Given the two-year transition period, we're in that bracket anyway (and would be going into the next one) and it would be the easiest solution. Britain pays what it would have done anyway, everyone has more time to work out these deals and solutions, Brussels knows what money they'll have available for the following period, Britain and the RoI have more time to hammer out a border arrangement and we could move to trade talks immediately. Splitting hairs and causing political and economic chaos for the sake of leaving 22 months sooner or later seems moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Because no-one is interested in finding an actual solution. This is modern politics, compromise is so last century, only brinkmanship is allowed these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 38 minutes ago, Werthead said: I'm surprised that no-one has floated the idea that Britain will simply leave the EU at the end of the current fiscal period. Given the two-year transition period, we're in that bracket anyway (and would be going into the next one) and it would be the easiest solution. Britain pays what it would have done anyway, everyone has more time to work out these deals and solutions, Brussels knows what money they'll have available for the following period, Britain and the RoI have more time to hammer out a border arrangement and we could move to trade talks immediately. Splitting hairs and causing political and economic chaos for the sake of leaving 22 months sooner or later seems moronic. I think the rush towards leaving might be driven by some of the Brexiteers being paranoid that the country might come to its senses and decide not to leave after all and that risk will increase over time - and even if that doesn't happen they're also afraid that if the Tory minority government collapses and we have another election then Labour will be in charge of deciding the terms of Brexit and might go for something with stronger links with Europe than they'd like. That said, if they were really worried about Brexit collapsing then it would make sense for them to be more willing to compromise rather than taking a hard-line given that they can't be sure of a Parliamentary majority backing that, but as with so many things I don't think they've really thought things through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, williamjm said: I don't think they've really thought things through. You think? Future historians are going to have a field day trying to make sense of this period in British political history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/21/2017 at 2:20 PM, Which Tyler said: Because no-one is interested in finding an actual solution. This is modern politics, compromise is so last century, only brinkmanship is allowed these days! There's a lot of "You grunt, I'll groan" about such negotiations. A deal is announced very late in the day, enabling each side to say to its supporters that they negotiated the best possible deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/16/2017 at 4:10 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: For what it's worth, Northern Ireland's Catholics voted overwhelmingly (85%) for Remain, while only 40% of Protestants voted Remain: https://theconversation.com/how-northern-ireland-voted-in-the-eu-referendum-and-what-it-means-for-border-talks-76677 Basically, Catholics voted en masse, regardless of class and income (perhaps to maintain links with the Republic?), whereas Protestants showed the same class and income divide as the UK mainland - poorer, less educated Protestants voted Leave, richer, better educated Protestants voted Remain. Sinn Fein used to be very anti-EU, but presumably recognise that Brexit makes Irish unification harder to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 On 23/10/2017 at 1:32 PM, SeanF said: Sinn Fein used to be very anti-EU, but presumably recognise that Brexit makes Irish unification harder to achieve. In the short term. In the long term, if it results in a major economic downturn, it could enhance the chances of unification, since moderate and younger Protestants will see the appeal in unification if it also means rejoining the EU. Sinn Fein I think are playing a waiting game here, which is why their current calls for a referendum are pretty low-key and muted. They know they could get a better chance in under a decade from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41794625 Jesus, sending your secretary to buy sex toys is a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggegg Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 52 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41794625 Jesus, sending your secretary to buy sex toys is a new one. Not quite sure why he couldn’t buy them himself! It’s not that scary you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Because it's not about wanting a sex toy, it's about making the secretary feel uncomfortable/uneasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggegg Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, Hereward said: Because it's not about wanting a sex toy, it's about making the secretary feel uncomfortable/uneasy. Possibly. I haven’t read any details about it other than he gave her money ( think he waited outside?) its hard to comment without knowing the context on these things. He made some ‘sugar tits’ comment which I believe was a quote from Gavin and Stacey. Of course it sounds terrible now but in a bar environment where quite often workers banter with each other you can see how these things can happen. You wouldn’t expect you boss to say something like that but I’ve had plenty of bosses who’ve said worse to me in jest. Im not excusing him, more that I’d rather know the context before judging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 19 minutes ago, Eggegg said: Possibly. I haven’t read any details about it other than he gave her money ( think he waited outside? Her version of events from the Mail story linked to in the BBC article: Quote ‘He has lied. He suggested to me in a Commons bar one evening that we went shopping for sex toys in Soho. The next day, he said, “Come on, let’s do it.” ‘He took me to Soho and gave me the money to buy two vibrators. He stood outside the shop while I did. He said one was for his wife and the other was for a woman who worked in his constituency office.’ Garnier's comment on this is Quote Quote He conceded that in the current post-Harvey Weinstein sexism climate it could ‘look like dinosaur behaviour’ but added: ‘In the context of the time, we got on fine.’ Apparently he thinks that back in the dim and distant past of 2010 asking your secretary to buy sex toys for your wife and another woman was perfectly normal behaviour in the 'context of the time'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 27 minutes ago, Eggegg said: Of course it sounds terrible now but in a bar environment where quite often workers banter with each other you can see how these things can happen. You wouldn’t expect you boss to say something like that but I’ve had plenty of bosses who’ve said worse to me in jest. And all of it is bullshit. I'm judging TF out of this creep-ass motherfucker and finding him guilty of being a sexist piece of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 I'm judging the shit out of him too, and wondering if he claimed that on expenses. I hope he gets kicked from the party at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggegg Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 34 minutes ago, williamjm said: Her version of events from the Mail story linked to in the BBC article: Garnier's comment on this is Apparently he thinks that back in the dim and distant past of 2010 asking your secretary to buy sex toys for your wife and another woman was perfectly normal behaviour in the 'context of the time'. I’m not so sure. He is claiming it is ‘high jinx’ and that it part of a fun shopping trip. Ive worked in a lot of offices in the past and this stuff happens all the time, the line between worker and boss is often blurred and the atmosphere is often full of blue jokes and sexual banter , from men and women. I can see a situation where this was all part of that. i personally think it was clearly inappropriate but I can certainly see a likelihood where it wouldn’t have appeared out of place at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 This may come as a shock, but I've also worked in a lot of offices in two different industries that are male-dominated, and that shit is most certainly NOT OK, and hasn't been since at least the late 1990s. And you can tell that the perpetrators know that it's not OK, because they're the ones constantly moaning about "PC this" and "oh noes HR that," and all of that palaver. Stop carrying water for people who make a habit of sexual harassment. ETA: I'm also going to point out that Pebble, upthread, has spent her entire professional career in an industry that is probably even more male-dominated than either of mine (one of which sports a 20:80 women:men split), and she's also giving this bullshit MP the side-eye. So, this isn't about not having experience working with primarily men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 29 minutes ago, Eggegg said: I’m not so sure. He is claiming it is ‘high jinx’ and that it part of a fun shopping trip. Ive worked in a lot of offices in the past and this stuff happens all the time, the line between worker and boss is often blurred and the atmosphere is often full of blue jokes and sexual banter , from men and women. I can see a situation where this was all part of that. i personally think it was clearly inappropriate but I can certainly see a likelihood where it wouldn’t have appeared out of place at the time. The fuck? Where have you worked? an 'atmosphere full of blue jokes and sexual banter' where 'the line between worker and boss is often blurred' is a textbook description of creep central. Go back to those places, check in with the not-boss-women who worked there, and ask them just how comfortable and of their free choosing participating in this environment was. Go on, I'm serious. I want to know what they say. Maybe they loved it. I want their input. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggegg Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, Datepalm said: The fuck? Where have you worked? an 'atmosphere full of blue jokes and sexual banter' where 'the line between worker and boss is often blurred' is a textbook description of creep central. Go back to those places, check in with the not-boss-women who worked there, and ask them just how comfortable and of their free choosing participating in this environment was. Go on, I'm serious. I want to know what they say. Maybe they loved it. I want their input. I'll wait. I can say I’ve worked in numerous offices like this over the last decade and a half. What id describe is really a bunch of small teams where everyone is basically good mates and go out with each other after work. Certainly not a very professional atmosphere I would grant you but Its pretty common in my experience. The banter is often loud and crude and not exactly intellectually stimulating. I’d arrogantly feel above it I admit. But the women in the office were often giving as good as they got and certainly didn’t have a problem with the nature of the chat and if it ever over stepped the mark ( which occasionally it would) then they would have no problem speaking up about it. Anyway this is all rather irrelevant as my point was that it’s hard to know exactly what went on and what the context was as we were not there. Im suggesting there are certainly scenarios where his behaviour might not have seemed so out of place at the time to those involved so I’m not going to jump to any conclusions straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted October 29, 2017 Share Posted October 29, 2017 Even in the police, which is very male orientated, a bit sexist and very 'banter', this wouldn't be ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.