UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[BigFatCoward]

If we get another 10 years of no pay rises due to the catastrophic fuck ups of this government I'm going to cry. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

13 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If we get another 10 years of no pay rises due to the catastrophic fuck ups of this government I'm going to cry. 

Yeah still suffering from the little-to-no payrises since the 2008 financial crisis. No sooner do we finally start gettingr pay rises that aren’t technically paycuts due to inflation, than we’re the scapegoats for the most recent crisis.

[HexMachina]

6 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Also talk of freezong public sector pay, possibly including NHS staff.

On one hand I can see why they might do it, given the private sector hammering. On the other, the public sector spent most of the last decade with no or 1% pay rises due to the last financial crisis.

And to do it to doctors and nurses eho’ve borne the brunt of this pandemic is cruel, given many have died, or chosen to go weeks/months without seeing their families for fear of exposing them. While having to use substandard ppe provided by companies owned by Tories or their donors at substantial cost to the NHS.

Maybe the MP’s could take a pay freeze?

My wife’s dept (neurological) largely escaped covid during the first wave, but they’re less lucky this time.

Oh, and apparently one reason (apart from capacity) there isn’t mass testing of NHS workers is that the fear is they’d identify so many as positive but asymptomatic that NHS Scotland would collapse if they had to send them all home for the quarantine period. Problem is, they can still spread it.

Most news reports I've heard today seem to think NHS will be exempt from the pay freeze. I would say even the Tories couldn't be so ill-advised as to include the NHS in a pay freeze right now but I just don't have that confidence, somehow.

Agreed regarding MP pay freeze.

 

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Do the Tories actually care about being perceived as the nasty party? I think most people think it is irrelevant if someone like Priti Patel is a bit of a nasty bully at work, as long as she gets the job done. Patel is generally well regarded by Tories I think, and like Alistair Campbell, are we really going to be pulling out a list of MPs who shout at their subordinates because we will be here a long time. 

The real issue is that the Tories are doing badly on the actual issues of competence and getting things done. 

(Though I noticed you missed out stuff like Boris' green agenda plan in your list of things they have done recently.. doesn't fit the narrative does it)

Alistair Campbell wasn't an MP, let alone a Cabinet minister, therefore wasn't subject to the ministerial code. You'd do better comparing him to Dom.

[Soylent Brown]

Not that shitty whataboutisms are any kind of defence anyway.

[A wilding]

I agree with the central point though; many people seem to tolerate the Tories being nasty, so long as they are also considered competent. They do need to fear losing their reputation for competence.

[Hereward]

I'm not sure what the objection to warships is. It's the first time I've actually been pleased with a Tory policy since about 2010. They are desperately needed, and, despite my objections, will be built in Scotland.

[BigFatCoward]

41 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I agree with the central point though; many people seem to tolerate the Tories being nasty, so long as they are also considered competent. They do need to fear losing their reputation for competence.

Thatcher was the worst person ever, but at least she wasn't incompetent. 

[mormont]

48 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I agree with the central point though; many people seem to tolerate the Tories being nasty, so long as they are also considered competent. They do need to fear losing their reputation for competence.

Bad news there then.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

Quote

Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly.

 

29 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I'm not sure what the objection to warships is. It's the first time I've actually been pleased with a Tory policy since about 2010. They are desperately needed, and, despite my objections, will be built in Scotland.

Why are they desperately needed, and why are they a higher priority and a better use of public money than - for example - public sector pay rises?

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Bad news there then.

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

 

Why are they desperately needed, and why are they a higher priority and a better use of public money than - for example - public sector pay rises?

Because the defence of the realm is the primary responsibility of any government, because we live in an increasingly unstable world, because we are almost entirely dependent on imports of crucial materials, because our navy is comparatively weaker than it has been for centuries. The government’s responsibility is to improve the position of its people once, and only once, it has secured their independence and security, without which everything else is built on sand.

[Derfel Cadarn]

10 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Because the defence of the realm is the primary responsibility of any government, because we live in an increasingly unstable world, because we are almost entirely dependent on imports of crucial materials, because our navy is comparatively weaker than it has been for centuries. The government’s responsibility is to improve the position of its people once, and only once, it has secured their independence and security, without which everything else is built on sand.

The ships can fuck off, we’ve got nukes :p

I need to get my extension’s flat roof and ceiling stripped to the joists and redone. So I’ll need a decent payrise.

The defence of the realm can wait until my home improvements are done.

Oh, and how the fuck do 1-5 Scots think Bojo has handled Covid well??

[Soylent Brown]

Are we not placing ourselves in a position of less security/more instability through Brexit?

[Hereward]

Just now, Soylent Brown said:

Are we not placing ourselves in a position of less security/more instability through Brexit?

Yes, of course we are. Which is why I opposed it. Do I really have to spend every post listing all the things I do not believe, cause that’s why I fucking left for 5 years?

[Hereward]

4 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The ships can fuck off, we’ve got nukes :p

I need to get my extension’s flat roof and ceiling stripped to the joists and redone. So I’ll need a decent payrise.

The defence of the realm can wait until my home improvements are done.

Oh, and how the fuck do 1-5 Scots think Bojo has handled Covid well??

As I know you know, sole reliance on nukes make using them more likely. Ignoring the defence of the realm is just an assumption that it exists, and always will, and we can all benefit from it, see 1920s.

Plus, you have devolved powers on the issues you are discussing. Complain to the beloved Nicola.

[Soylent Brown]

5 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Yes, of course we are. Which is why I opposed it. Do I really have to spend every post listing all the things I do not believe, cause that’s why I fucking left for 5 years?

Not trying to have a go, I know where you stand. More just bashing my head against a wall and sharing it.

[Hereward]

Sorry, Soylent. Understood.

[mormont]

50 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Because the defence of the realm is the primary responsibility of any government, because we live in an increasingly unstable world, because we are almost entirely dependent on imports of crucial materials, because our navy is comparatively weaker than it has been for centuries. The government’s responsibility is to improve the position of its people once, and only once, it has secured their independence and security, without which everything else is built on sand.

I'm very far from convinced, I'm afraid. The defence of the realm bit is important but not, I would suggest, the primary responsibility of any government - that is, so far as I'm concerned, to look after its people in a material sense, including but not limited to threats from invasion. It seems to me military threats to our security and independence are not the paramount issue at this time, and it's entirely unclear to me that we aren't already adequately defended from these anyway - or how more frigates would address the main threats in that area. Or for that matter, how they're going to protect imports that largely come in on foreign-registered ships. International security and stability does more to protect import shipping, surely, than a big navy?

No, not sold. There are much, much more urgent spending priorities than this.

[Hereward]

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm very far from convinced, I'm afraid. The defence of the realm bit is important but not, I would suggest, the primary responsibility of any government - that is, so far as I'm concerned, to look after its people in a material sense, including but not limited to threats from invasion.

It seems to me military threats to our security and independence are not the paramount issue at this time, and it's entirely unclear to me that we aren't already adequately defended from these anyway - or how more frigates would address the main threats in that area. Or for that matter, how they're going to protect imports that largely come in on foreign-registered ships. International security and stability does more to protect import shipping, surely, than a big navy?

No, not sold. There are much, much more urgent spending priorities than this.

I am utterly unsurprised. Your refusal to accept the view of the "experts" is noted, though funny how the disdain for refusal to accept the expert view disappears when the experts don't align with your preconceptions. I disagree.  What makes you think we are adequately defended, apart from wishful thing, and what is more, depending on others to provide the security we can't be bothered to provide ourselves? The comment of foreign-flagged ships makes no sense. The US has no merchant marine to speak of, are you therefore suggesting that it doesn't, or shouldn't, or has no interest in, or isn't allowed to protect the sea lanes?

Picking up my earlier point, when you say that "International security and stability does more to protect import shipping, surely, than a big navy", aren't you just saying someone else's navy, in this case the utterly unreliable Americans, should provide the security gratis, and we can therefore just forget about it? I am restraining myself here on SNP policy n free-riding.

[Werthead]

Improving our national defence always sounds good, but it is unclear why a dramatic increase in investment is required. Britain currently spends more money on its defence than most countries in the world. As a percentage of GDP we are seventh, behind only Saudi Arabia, Russia (and that figure is contentious, it appears Russia spends somewhat less than that), the USA, South Korea, India and Australia, and somewhat ahead of France and a lot further ahead than Turkey and Brazil. At this rate we are operating or about to be operating two aircraft carriers more advanced than any in the world bar the USA's, we have a fleet of the most advanced aircraft in the world (delivered a bit late, but still), some of the most advanced destroyers and a reasonably formidable battery of vehicles. We also have a nuclear deterrent. We are far more than capable of defending the British Isles and our overseas assets (the Falklands are arguably the most defended-per-head-of-population location in the world and modern Argentina is only marginally more of a credible military threat than the local penguin population).

In those areas where we face a significant enemy, such as Eastern Europe and the Baltics, we are part of a very large and capable multinational military alliance capable of bringing overwhelming force to bear on that threat, to the point where there really isn't much of a realistic threat. This is especially true given that Russia's crumbling economy means it can't sustain its military spending, and has prevented them from pursuing next-generation technology such as their new generation of tanks (which they built a dozen of and then stopped because they're far too expensive). The threat from that quarter appears to have receded in recent years and is certainly nowhere near the level it was during the Cold War, which necessitated much higher defence spending.

We probably do need a new generation of tanks and submarines, and increasing our armed forces back to over 100,000 would give us some spare capacity in case of an unexpected commitment arising, but I'm not seeing a massive gap in British capability that urgently needs tens of billions of pounds hurled into it right now ahead of other, much-more neglected areas of spending such as education and council budgets, which have been effectively crippled for a decade straight.

I do agree that the last four years have taught us that relying on America for our protection is not a good idea, but we never really did that anyway. Due to the simple issue of budgets and manpower, we do need to align with other countries against significant threats, and it if isn't the USA then it's going to be Europe. Fortunately, it appears that the next four years at least should be a return to the international status quo. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I don’t know if any of you have read a newspaper recently, but the ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rising. More sea means more waves, and I’ll be damned if they don’t need someone to rule them!