Jump to content

UK Politics: It's Time To Think The Unthinkable But This Lot Can't Even Think The Thinkable


Spockydog

Recommended Posts

On 1/18/2023 at 3:24 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

It sure read that way to me. Happy to be enlightened.

Because there is a difference between healthcare spending on those working age and younger, and those who are elderly. Which is a distinction I included in the first post. As would have been clear if you’d quoted the paragraph directly following the one you did. See below both paragraphs. 
 

On 1/17/2023 at 11:26 PM, ants said:

Additionally, when investing money spent on medical/ageing assistance is not a good investment. As in, it doesn’t help increase productivity. It won’t return more money to the coffers down the track than you spend. Actually, the reverse. The longer people live the more it costs the government. 
 

Some can be good; pregnancy & child health, preventive care, anything helping people get back to work, especially for younger people. But spending on old people’s health isn’t an area where you get those benefits. It’s a sunk cost. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Elderly never do childcare, never care for other elderly people, never have jobs, never do community service, never perform volunteer work like helping immigrant and other children learn to read.  They never do anything at all, but just sit there, useless mouths, as Hitler called them, just like women who weren't producing children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ants said:

Because there is a difference between healthcare spending on those working age and younger, and those who are elderly. Which is a distinction I included in the first post. As would have been clear if you’d quoted the paragraph directly following the one you did. See below both paragraphs. 
 

 

Fair cop. Though I would still argue that the slant of those paragraphs combined implies deficit spending on the health system over the next 10 or so years, which is how long it would take as a minimum to deploy that spending to get the NHS back in reasonable shape, is not an overall benefit. "Some can be good" I would argue that should read most health care spending would be good.

Also what @Zorral said.

I think it is important to understand that the only times in history when inflation has been a really serious problem (i.e. hyper-inflation) has been due to either massive corruption and / or major supply shocks. This time is no different. The inflation we're seeing everywhere today are largely a combination of those two factors. It's not about demand. The supply problems (including labour supply, which includes the health sector) need to be fixed and the corruption (in the form of outrageous profit taking, and maybe also the corruption of awarding massive govt contracts (esp COVID response contracts) to companies and businesses who failed to deliver) needs to be dealt with. It is certainly not the case that people want to eat more or use more energy to heat their homes or drive their cars than they did in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It is notable that the "miserable" part keeps being ignored.

True, one could infer they think  making trans people miserable enough to retreat from the public isn’t an unreasonable proclamation of their desires or at least not an insulting one.

Within a couple months I wager you’ll see bills like this at least floated

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words mean things.

Nadhim Zahawi 'transparent' over tax affairs - Raab

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64358025

Except when we drill down, what Raab actually said was:

Quote

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the deputy PM said Mr Zahawi "has been transparent about the fact that all of the tax has been paid and he doesn't have any tax outstanding".

"He has been clear that all of his tax owed to HMRC are up to date and paid in full," Mr Raab added.

"If he needs to answer any further questions I'm sure he'll do so".

In other words, in recent statements, Zahawi is being 'transparent' about not owing tax now. He has not been at all transparent about the fact that he did owe tax and did have to pay a penalty for trying to avoid paying tax.

So far from 'transparent' was Zahawi about this at the time that he had lawyers send letters threatening to sue for libel anyone who reported the (absolutely true) claim that he had unpaid taxes. His lawyers were actually reprimanded for having sent these letters, which were without basis. He tried to intimidate and bully people into silence. That's about as far from 'transparent' as it gets.

Is there a current prominent Tory who hasn't committed a sacking offence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2023 at 5:43 PM, Denvek said:

Given that your main objections seem to be around single sex spaces, let me remind you that trans people don't need a GRC for their access to single sex spaces of their chosen gender to be protected by the Equality Act. So I'd expect the court ruling to re-affirm that there's no conflict between the Scottish bill and the Equality Act (which is 2010, not 2004 - 2004 is the date of the original GRA the Scottish bill is amending).

Since I'm just a layperson like everyone else here, I'll add this Twitter thread from a former Attorney General explaining why the Tories statement on why they've invoked s35 doesn't justify it.

 

Just going back to this Falconer thread that lots of people jumped on the other day. At the time I thought there were a bunch of holes in what he was saying based on some pretty wild assumptions. Those assumptions being that the numbers for people applying for GRCs are much smaller in his head that is likely, that he seems to think it’s far less problematic to UK wide administrative system than it probably is, he has made massive assumptions that there will be any sort of oversight for bad actors, and has underestimated the actual effect this has on single sex spaces.

Anyway, this is a rather good blog pointing out many of the flaws in Falconers thread. Worth a read

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/01/20/the-limits-of-the-lord-falconer-thread/

Quote

Given Lord Falconer’s standing, for many people either already inclined to agree with him here, or without a strong view, he will reasonably be seen as an authoritative figure. This blog analyses Lord Falconer’s thread and argues that it does not stand up well to detailed scrutiny, although there are a couple of points that might be usable in any case the Scottish Government brings.

Also

Quote

In no particular order, his surprising presentation of numbers suggests either a failure of multiplication skills or a lack of clear drafting. His account of the Equality Act is incomplete and in places wrong, confused or confusing. He makes a number of legal-sounding proclamations that cannot be related back to the law, in the Equality Act or elsewhere. He glosses over the reason the GRA was enacted for the UK as a whole in 2004, notwithstanding his own involvement in that. He appears not to appreciate the extent to which the benefits system is IT based and to believe in the elimination of single-sex education by stealth. Aspects of school admissions are described very oddly. He introduces legal concepts technically irrelevant to a judicial review. He substantially over-states the degree of police oversight the Bill provides for. At more than one point, he appears not to have understood the Bill’s fundamental purpose is to provide a new route to the existing form of GRC, not a new type of GRC.

The largest weaknesses however lie in what is missing. Lord Falconer does not deal with significant issues raised in the Statement of Reasons. These include a loss of comparators for equal pay purposes and the strict privacy provisions in the 2004 Act. Most strikingly, he shows no interest in the key rationale underpinning the Statement of Reasons, namely concern for impacts on women and girls. Where these are not ignored, they are briskly waved aside.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the fact that GRCs are irrelevant for access to single-sex spaces as that's all under the Equality Act and, as mentioned earlier, you don't need a GRC to qualify for Equality Act protection as a trans person. As per the EHRC - the last paragraph of this page https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

Quote

Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Denvek said:

Doesn't change the fact that GRCs are irrelevant for access to single-sex spaces as that's all under the Equality Act and, as mentioned earlier, you don't need a GRC to qualify for Equality Act protection as a trans person. As per the EHRC - the last paragraph of this page https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/protecting-people-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

 

Listen trans bad ergo whatever can make them happy being trans bad.

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Anyway, this is a rather good blog

It’s a terf blog and no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More Tory corruption: not at all surprising, particulary as it involves Johnson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64362640
 

Quote

Labour is calling for a parliamentary investigation into claims the chairman of the BBC helped Boris Johnson secure a loan - weeks before the then-prime minister recommended him for the role.

The Sunday Times says Richard Sharp was involved in arranging a guarantor on a loan of up to £800,000 for Mr Johnson.

Mr Sharp said he had "simply connected" people and there was no conflict of interest.

That's how it's done, of course. You or I might need to answer screeds of awkward questions before getting an £800 loan. In these circles, you have dinner and a civilised chat to get an £800,000 loan. One hand washes the other. And nobody ever does anything wrong.
 

Quote

The Sunday Times says multimillionaire Canadian businessman Sam Blyth raised with Mr Sharp the idea of acting as Mr Johnson's guarantor for a loan. It is not clear where the loan money came from.

Mr Sharp - a Conservative Party donor who at the time, was applying to be the chairman of the BBC - contacted Simon Case, the then-cabinet secretary and head of the civil service.

According to the paper, Mr Sharp, Mr Blyth and Mr Johnson had dinner together at Chequers before the loan was finalised, although they deny the PM's finances were discussed then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

More Tory corruption: not at all surprising, particulary as it involves Johnson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64362640
 

That's how it's done, of course. You or I might need to answer screeds of awkward questions before getting an £800 loan. In these circles, you have dinner and a civilised chat to get an £800,000 loan. One hand washes the other. And nobody ever does anything wrong.
 

 

It's OK  he said there was no conflict of interest, I'm satisfied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laura Kuenssberg’s Time as BBC Political Editor has been a Catastrophic, Systemic Failure

Quote

Laura Kuenssberg’s tenure as the BBC’s political editor, beginning in July 2015 and ending in the coming weeks, was a catastrophe.

On her watch, lies were not just permitted, they were amplified and given credibility by Britain’s state broadcaster. At least partly as a result of this, the UK Government now routinely lies with impunity. The country’s international standing has been irreparably harmed, and trust in the political system has been trashed.

I don’t hold Kuenssberg entirely responsible for this state of affairs – I think that BBC managers carry a large amount of the blame because they chose the wrong person, for the wrong job.

...

A Loudspeaker for Lies
Kuenssberg also gave the impression that she was far more comfortable holding the opposition to account than the Government. She should have been moved to a new role after the 2019 General Election. But then came the pandemic, and she hit a particular low point when Cummings, at that time a chief aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, broke lockdown rules and drove hundreds of miles north – eventually ‘testing his eyesight’ by driving to Barnard Castle.

That story was broken by Pippa Crerar for the Daily Mirror. Yet, before the ink was dry on that genuine scoop – before most people had read it or even heard about it – Kuenssberg was tweeting Downing Street’s rebuttal. That’s how she viewed her job – and what she was employed to do: to repeat, to a mass audience, what she had been told by her top level sources.

This was problematic, primarily because – for the first time in my lifetime – the Prime Minister and those around him lied unashamedly. And they lied, knowing that their dishonest version of events would be repeated by Kuenssberg.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

 

 

Time for GP surgeries to remove Tory MP’s from their lists. For hospitals to refuse to treat Tory MP’s (unless life or death). For pharmacies to refuse their custom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...