Monday 10th April 2017

Post by **refitman** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 7:10 am

Morning all.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 7:25 am

Good morning

So has the attack by the US on a sovereign state ( no matter how repugnant it is) brought any positives?

Our country seems diminished and the US seem to have no idea what to do next

An attack like this has to be really well thought through and likely consequences scenarioed

We now see Russia and Iran lining up clearly behind Syria....and almost issuing a 'come on then let's have it' comment

Seems to me to have been a shambles but then again our useless Government will get off untouched as the media will be interested more who is shagging who and significant parts of the opposition support them.

But 'doing something' and looking tough is always so much easier than trying to solve a phenomenally complex situation by diplomacy!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 7:31 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning

So has the attack by the US on a sovereign state ( no matter how repugnant it is) brought any positives?

Our country seems diminished and the US seem to have no idea what to do next

An attack like this has to be really well thought through and likely consequences scenarioed

We now see Russia and Iran lining up clearly behind Syria....and almost issuing a 'come on then let's have it' comment

Seems to me to have been a shambles but then again our useless Government will get off untouched as the media will be interested more who is shagging who and significant parts of the opposition support them.

But 'doing something' and looking tough is always so much easier than trying to solve a phenomenally complex situation by diplomacy!

It entirely depends upon whether chemical weapons continue to be used.

If they are not, then yes, it achieved something.

Similarly, we can judge the earlier tactic of not taking military action against Assad, and relying upon the voluntary destruction through agreement with Russia, to have failed by the same measure.

As for "diplomacy", that doesn't help any more than Corbyn's arguing for a 'political' solution. It is just wishing for the peaceful ends, without specifying any means whereby that can be achieved. It would be laughable, were the issue not so serious.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:14 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning

So has the attack by the US on a sovereign state ( no matter how repugnant it is) brought any positives?

Our country seems diminished and the US seem to have no idea what to do next

An attack like this has to be really well thought through and likely consequences scenarioed

We now see Russia and Iran lining up clearly behind Syria....and almost issuing a 'come on then let's have it' comment

Seems to me to have been a shambles but then again our useless Government will get off untouched as the media will be interested more who is shagging who and significant parts of the opposition support them.

But 'doing something' and looking tough is always so much easier than trying to solve a phenomenally complex situation by diplomacy!
It entirely depends upon whether chemical weapons continue to be used.

If they are not, then yes, it achieved something.

Similarly, we can judge the earlier tactic of not taking military action against Assad, and relying upon the voluntary destruction through agreement with Russia, to have failed by the same measure.

As for "diplomacy", that doesn't help any more than Corbyn's arguing for a 'political' solution. It is just wishing for the peaceful ends, without specifying any means whereby that can be achieved. It would be laughable, were the issue not so serious.

Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence services within theatre

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:19 am

Good Corbyn everybody!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:29 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!

1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:32 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Good Corbyn everybody!

And Good Corbinge to you, too.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:32 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!
1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.

My emphasis. This is clearly contestable. This is a Forum. Please discuss not assert.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:37 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:
Well there seems to be a little less confidence that Assad was responsible but my assumption is still that he is

Oh and I have little confidence in the intelligence within theatre of our intelligence services

I have said before I see no great difference between 'toxic chemical weapons and 'explosive' chemical weapons......perhaps we should show some of the aftermath of bomb attacks as well...not a pretty sight I imagine.

As to your last point. I am not sure what your solution to Syria is if not a diplomatic one? Are you proposing a military one...where is your solution

And the US has just attacked a sovereign state - that is an escalation! An escalation with no plan

And can you tell me you **** what Corbyn has to do with it all?

Why do you never criticise the pathetic antics of our current Government who are making us look ridiculous.....oh I forgot they are Tories and you are one!
1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.
My emphasis. This is clearly contestable. This is a Forum. Please discuss not assert.

The reasons why I consider the government to be right are given above.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:40 am

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:42 am

A UK government source dismissed the criticism of Mr Johnson: “The important thing is that this is Britain helping to influence US policy on Syria and Russia, far from being a poodle.

“Three months ago Syria wasn't really an issue for them but our push and recent events have made a difference.”

The source did not explain that influence the UK has so far had on US policy.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:43 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Yes. "poodle" is the insult the Russian government has used about the UK for its following the US on its opposition to the use of chemical weapons.

lol, indeed.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:49 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Yes. "poodle" is the insult the Russian government has used about the UK for its following the President of the US on its opposition to the use of chemical weapons.

lol, indeed.

Fixed that for you. There has been no democratic mandate that I noticed.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 8:51 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rard-coyne" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

len-mccluskey-has-lost-the-plot-over-unite-election-says-rival-gerard-coyne

Gerard Coyne has a "rant" in the Guardian about McCluskey.

Asked if he would seek to withdraw Unite’s support for Corbyn if he won, Coyne argued it was not his priority.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:02 am

Morning.

Why we are where we are, part 94 in an ongoing series...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:04 am

NonOxCol wrote:Morning.

Why we are where we are, part 94 in an ongoing series...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the way, there's a truly staggering tweet from Michael White in amongst the replies.

Well, maybe not that staggering really.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:05 am

A pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation is also against international law....good luck with that. How does Israel fit into this? Holds two types of WMD 'illegally'

War crimes......a lot of people could be said to be guilty of these

Who set the US up as the judge jury and executioner on this

I deplore the use of chemical weapons and also many other weapons as well.

There is no point arguing with you due to you lack of intellectual capability to understand complexity and to change your mind

I may not agree often with Tubby or TE but they are a class above you

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:10 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:A pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation is also against international law....good luck with that. How does Israel fit into this? Holds two types of WMD 'illegally'

War crimes......a lot of people could be said to be guilty of these

Who set the US up as the judge jury and executioner on this

I deplore the use of chemical weapons and also many other weapons as well.

There is no point arguing with you due to you lack of intellectual capability to understand complexity and to change your mind

I may not agree often with Tubby or TE but they are a class above you

Yes it is (Some deny that. I don't). See also the intervention in Kosovo, which was also in my opinion contrary to international law, but the right thing to do. We should have intervened in Rwanda. Sometimes it is right to break the law. International law is, in my opinion, seriously defective in many respects. That doesn't mean it has no weight.

As for Israel, that is the usual whataboutery.

Yes, I am clearly too stupid to follow the subtleties of your argument.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:26 am

Morning all.

This was flagged up to me on the social media.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-09/ ... -heres-why" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:29 am

Pig wrestling. The pig enjoys the mud. Me, not so much.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 9:52 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Trump's poodle.
The sweet smell of "freedom"

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 10:06 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 75776.html

syria-boris-johnson-poodle-missile-strikes-cruise-donald-trump-assad-chemical-weapons

Trump's poodle.
The sweet smell of "freedom"

I'm thinking more gimp. Let out of the dungeon when it serves the purpose of Trump.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 10:08 am

I guess it's only a matter of before Fallon and Fox are praising Eric Prince and his efficient company.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 10:26 am

Morning all.

On the story in The Times about the NHS wanting to borrow money from hedge funds.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tories would be awfully tempted to get private money in but would imagine the Treasury would slap it down.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:01 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/3-mi ... it-changes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3 million households set to benefit from Universal Credit changes

So much disingenuous tosh and downright inaccuracies,Contributory versions don't come under UC as but one.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:06 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rard-coyne

len-mccluskey-has-lost-the-plot-over-unite-election-says-rival-gerard-coyne

Gerard Coyne has a "rant" in the Guardian about McCluskey.
Asked if he would seek to withdraw Unite’s support for Corbyn if he won, Coyne argued it was not his priority.

Ah, how very confidence inspiring.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:10 am

Open consultation
Reducing litter: penalties for environmental offences

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmen ... penalties/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:12 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ent-powers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Open consultation
Trade Union Act 2016: consultation on the Certification Officer’s enforcement powers

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:17 am

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stop PIP reassessments for patients with progressive diseases, campaigners say
MPs and charities say rising number of retesting claimants with incurable diseases such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis makes little sense

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:18 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
1. Really? What is the plausible story anybody has given that it was not Assad? None at all that I have heard.

2. One is prohibited by international law. The other is not.

3. I doubt that a good solution is possible now. It was possible that if the west had intervened militarily earlier, that Assad could have been removed and a stable alternative government taken power. As it is, it looks like Assad's butchers will remain in power. The best that can be hoped for is that Russia is persuaded to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

4. It has indeed. Attacking sovereign states is sometimes justifiable. If they commit grotesque war crimes, like using chemical weapons against their own populations, it is justifiable to use force to try and stop that. For other situations see also Kosovo and Rwanda.

5. I am English and it is important to know what the leader of the opposition thinks on central questions like this. Corbyn, the former chair of Stop the War (sic), unsurprisingly takes the same view on this as they do. He has always opposed all military action anywhere by the west. Like Stop the War, he is quick to condemn the US, but slow to criticise Putin. His suggested alternatives are always nice ends ("peace") without any means being specified.

6. That seems like whataboutery to me. On this question, was the limited military action against Assad right, the government is right. Corbyn disagrees. Most of the PLP don't agree with Corbyn of course, but then they don't represent Labour any longer. I consider that to be unfortunate, as you know.
My emphasis. This is clearly contestable. This is a Forum. Please discuss not assert.
The reasons why I consider the government to be right are given above.

So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:20 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".

Who else's view would you think I was expressing?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:24 am

Rupert the Bear circa 1936

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:28 am

I think it is a reasonable request.I tend to talk at people.It just makes sense in pursuance of genuine discussion,in my view.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:30 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".
Who else's view would you think I was expressing?

"The government is right" is a statement of fact
"I think the government is right" or "In my view etc" is an opinion.

Different.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:35 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
So no harm in preceding "the government is right" with "in my view".
Who else's view would you think I was expressing?
"The government is right" is a statement of fact
"I think the government is right" or "In my view etc" is an opinion.

Different.

Do you really want me to police this new stylistic directive?

I will if you like....

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:41 am

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... il-service" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whitehall woes: why is no one talking about our crumbling civil service

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:51 am

If you look at my original post (that Hugo pretty much ignored and twisted back to his favourite subject) you will see I didn't overtly criticise the action itself but rather the planning of the aftermath

It seems from subsequent actions that no-one had really any idea what came next and how the diplomatic aftermath managed

We now have the British foreign secretary looking a bit silly at best and the US scrabbling around

I come back to my main point....the US attacking Syria directly is an escalation...whether a right or wrong one depends on what happens now

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:55 am

Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:58 am

Owen Paterson comes up with another class of foreign worker we need. Abattoir workers.

Who are the bad ones again?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:00 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk ... il-service

Whitehall woes: why is no one talking about our crumbling civil service

Interesting article - wonder at what point someone says "We need to look at what's done by government and how many departments we actually need and what they do". Big job but one that needs doing from time to time. Companies do this and have strategic planning at the centre of the organisations - Governments ought to do this too - and be open about it.

If I could go on my hobby-horse for a minute, I wonder how many people, if they knew about it in advance, would go for this:

"What we'll do is take away responsibility for oversight of schools from local authorities and give it all to the DfE and its civil servants who will simply do what the DfE tells them to"

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:01 pm

Staying with the civil service...

Henry Mance‏Verified account
@henrymance

Follow
More
Great story - civil servants are so busy with Brexit that expiring outsourcing contracts are just being rolled over https://www.ft.com/content/fa80d526-1b7a-11e7-a266-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civil service was cut down so far that when they're faced with an enormous challenge like Brexit - everything else goes to pot.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:01 pm

See I'd be happier with the £10 minimum if I thought eg Carwyn Jones had been consulted.

"Carwyn, you represent a poor region. What are investors going to make of it?"

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:05 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Staying with the civil service...

Henry Mance‏Verified account
@henrymance

Follow
More
Great story - civil servants are so busy with Brexit that expiring outsourcing contracts are just being rolled over https://www.ft.com/content/fa80d526-1b7a-11e7-a266-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The civil service was cut down so far that when they're faced with an enormous challenge like Brexit - everything else goes to pot.

Rail is an exception to that. Lots of changes with franchises. It's unusual though in that the government are putting money in and being reasonably far sighted with investment (even if it's all years behind schedule ).

Post by **adam** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:05 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:As for Israel, that is the usual whataboutery.

Ha!

You might not be doing this here, but the idea that you can't consider an issue in light of another issue is just risible.

In 2014, as part of their bombardment of and invasion of Gaza and amongst many other things then and at other times, bombed three UNWRA schools and in doing so probably were committing war crimes, carried out the targeted killings of hundreds of civilians and attacked civilian infrastructure.

If one state in the region can act with impunity in this way but another needs to be bombed, there's something wrong, and something worth talking about. Arguing that it is whataboutery to discuss Israel's role in the middle east makes anything else you say nonsense.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:15 pm

Fuck's SAKE.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So easy to believe as well.

Motorway bridge near Woodall Services (M1) northbound - last week there was a banner saying "BREXIT BRING IT ON". This week it says "BREXIT WE WANT IT HARD AND FAST".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:19 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?

Labour aren't in a position to implement anything by "2020" so I doubt much thought has been given to the cost in terms of jobs and in terms of costs to councils trying to provide social care etc.

Besides, wages don't operate in a vacuum. It's the mismatch between incomes and essential outgoings that affects standard of living. I'd prefer more focus on housing costs and energy monopolies. But then Ed Miliband had proposals on rent reforms and energy reforms which I liked but others presumably didn't, so no doubt whacking up the minimum wage will prove "popular" despite the obvious problems and the fact being paid more doesn't help if house costs go straight up in reaction.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:23 pm

NonOxCol wrote:Fuck's SAKE.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So easy to believe as well.

Motorway bridge near Woodall Services (M1) northbound - last week there was a banner saying "BREXIT BRING IT ON". This week it says "BREXIT WE WANT IT HARD AND FAST".

I would hope somebody is looking into who is behind this......

Post by **adam** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:24 pm

Snippity snip snip...

Willow904 wrote: and energy monopolies.

Story from the graun at the weekend
North Sea oil and gas industry cost the UK taxpayer £396million in 2016

edit - too much snipping

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:27 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?
Labour aren't in a position to implement anything by "2020" so I doubt much thought has been given to the cost in terms of jobs and in terms of costs to councils trying to provide social care etc.

Besides, wages don't operate in a vacuum. It's the mismatch between incomes and essential outgoings that affects standard of living. I'd prefer more focus on housing costs and energy monopolies. But then Ed Miliband had proposals on rent reforms and energy reforms which I liked but others presumably didn't, so no doubt whacking up the minimum wage will prove "popular" despite the obvious problems and the fact being paid more doesn't help if house costs go straight up in reaction.

Funnily enough, somebody in the Labour Party has thought about this

Pledge 2

We will build over a million new homes in five years, with at least half a million council homes, through our public investment strategy.

We will end insecurity for private renters by introducing rent controls, secure tenancies and a charter of private tenants’ rights, and increase access to affordable home ownership.

Pledge 6

We will act to protect the future of our planet, with social justice at the heart of our environmental policies, and take action to fulfil the Paris climate agreement.

We will ensure a fair transition to a low-carbon economy, and drive the expansion of the green industries and jobs of the future, using our National Investment Bank to invest in public and community-owned renewable energy.

We will deliver clean energy and curb energy bill rises for households – energy for the 60 million, not the Big Six energy companies. We will defend and extend EU environmental protections.

OK these are not policies, but there's a bit more to the Labour offer than they are given credit for in the MSM!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Mon 10 Apr, 2017 12:28 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Reiterated £10 an hour minimum wage straight in 2020.

Haven't we got a slow down coming? Has anybody actually modelled the effects?
Labour aren't in a position to implement anything by "2020" so I doubt much thought has been given to the cost in terms of jobs and in terms of costs to councils trying to provide social care etc.

Besides, wages don't operate in a vacuum. It's the mismatch between incomes and essential outgoings that affects standard of living. I'd prefer more focus on housing costs and energy monopolies. But then Ed Miliband had proposals on rent reforms and energy reforms which I liked but others presumably didn't, so no doubt whacking up the minimum wage will prove "popular" despite the obvious problems and the fact being paid more doesn't help if house costs go straight up in reaction.

Indeed.

Have any costings been done for social care wages, for example? That money from private school fees VAT could have been useful as a start.

I have a horrible feeling that the plan from here is to fire out stuff like this for the base.