Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

LionsV2 wrote:

Galted wrote:

As much as I agree with you that much of the reason for the Leave vote was the racism and pig-ignorance of the likes of Lionsv2 and old people, I'm not sure the questions you're asking are particularly relevant.  I'd quite like a cut in local crime but couldn't name a single local criminal.

I beg your pardon?

No doubt the mods will do nothing about that.

He said you were “PIG IGNORANT”. I’ve heard of hard of hearing before but not hard of reading.

rick_dagless wrote:
speculation
noun [ C or U ]  uk ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/ us ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/  

speculation noun [ C or U ]  (GUESS)
​
C1 the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain:

And is it not common sense to say the changes in opinion polls happen just after big political moments? And the next big political moment on the horizon (at present) is the finalization of the Brexit deal. I'd say it is equally as speculative to read too much into an opinion poll months before a key political moment is it not?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:
speculation
noun [ C or U ]  uk ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/ us ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/  

speculation noun [ C or U ]  (GUESS)
​
C1 the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain:

And is it not common sense to say the changes in opinion polls happen just after big political moments? And the next big political moment on the horizon (at present) is the finalization of the Brexit deal. I'd say it is equally as speculative to read too much into an opinion poll months before a key political moment is it not?

To be fair, you've not exactly been on point with your "common sense" predictions thus far.

Pr4wn wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

rick_dagless wrote:
speculation
noun [ C or U ]  uk ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/ us ​   /ˌspek.jəˈleɪ.ʃən/  

speculation noun [ C or U ]  (GUESS)
​
C1 the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain:

And is it not common sense to say the changes in opinion polls happen just after big political moments? And the next big political moment on the horizon (at present) is the finalization of the Brexit deal. I'd say it is equally as speculative to read too much into an opinion poll months before a key political moment is it not?

To be fair, you've not exactly been on point with your "common sense" predictions thus far.

That depends though on your viewpoint doesn't it? All polls back up what i have said in that 40% of the population in Scotland are staunch independence backers come what may. That is a large enough number to say this issue of independence is not going to go away.

The desire for independence has waned considerably since the last referendum and the SNP have seen their overall majority reduced significantly.

Momentum is not in your favour, but if you want to wear tartan-tinted spectacles, be my guest.

Pr4wn wrote:The desire for independence has waned considerably since the last referendum and the SNP have seen their overall majority reduced significantly.

Momentum is not in your favour, but if you want to wear tartan-tinted spectacles, be my guest.

Well you carry on wearing your Union Jack tinted specs but it doesn't change that 40% of Scots are staunchly backing independence. As for momentum that has been there since the mid 1980s and has seen the figure of around 20% backing independence rise steadily to the 40% that there is now. I am not sure on the figures in thst timescale but I would hazard a guess that staunch unionists have dropped from around 70% to just under 50% now.

No specs here, bud. I don't live in the UK, nor have I ever.

Are you seriously suggesting that appetite for independence has increased since the referendum?

Pr4wn wrote:No specs here, bud. I don't live in the UK, nor have I ever.

Are you seriously suggesting that appetite for independence has increased since the referendum?

Let me explain how things are in Scotland. You have say 48% (at the moment) who are staunch die-hard unionists - come what may they will vote to stay in the union without question. And on the other side of the coin you have about 40% die hard Scots who will vote for independence come what may. The other 12% are floaters/undecided/don't know.

Personally, I think it is too soon to go for another referendum but the Scottish governments hand is kind of forced. As we all know the UK voted to exit Europe whereas 63% of people who voted in Scotland voted to remain in Europe. So that is a grievance that if not exploited then anytime in the future ie 5, 10 or 20 years down the line at a quieter time in politics the SNP were to call for a referendum it would stand far less chance of being granted without a good cause.

Now onto statistical facts of the last referendum. 70% of people aged 55-70 voted no. Whereas 70% of those aged 18-30 were yes voters. The younger generation are the future of Scotland so that suggests a trend that bodes well for the future.

Like I say this question about independence is not going to go away when such a large amount of people back independence.

As to your question about momentum just now  - no there isn't. It is a kind of stalemate though and there is certainly no momentum on the no sayers.

If you are a Ukip supporter...

It could be worse !!.......Not sure how ??

But that is what you need to tell yourself..

I don't get why he has to resign because someone (who is not him) said something racist.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If you are a Ukip supporter...

It could be worse !!.......Not sure how ??

But that is what you need to tell yourself..

Ah, delusional Henry! He's even worse than Nuttall!

"I'm not going to let this party be disrupted by in-fighting." - near enough all of his 'shadow cabinet' resign the following day.

I think he's resigning in a couple of hours.

Scottrf wrote:I don't get why he has to resign because someone (who is not him) said something racist.

Probably UKIP trying to shed it's racist tag not being helped when the leaders partner is racist

GSC wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I don't get why he has to resign because someone (who is not him) said something racist.

Probably UKIP trying to shed it's racist tag not being helped when the leaders partner is racist

It's not him though. It's some girl he's been boning a few weeks. Ridiculous for party leaderships to be decided over such tabloid matters.

Tony having another pop at Corbyn today..

Wow twice in two weeks..Corbyn must be enjoying the Toxic money grabber's pitiful attempts to stay relevant.

Blair's negatives are off the scale...and this attempt at fisticuffs will probably be ignored like the last.

He doesn't think you are a problem Tony......

Yesterday's news.

UKIP are heading towards being obsolete from mainstream politics and a fringe party again. They got their precious Brexit and now Farage is off the scene there is no one capable of leading them. Bunch of Meat trombone soloist anyway

May's odds slashed from 3/1 to 5/4 to go this year...

Speculation that the 48 Tory mp letters needed for no confidence in leader has reached the mid 40s...

Meanwhile rough sleeping is up by 15% over the last year, and has nearly tripled since 2010. When May was asked about homeless children at PMQs a few weeks back, her response was that they weren't sleeping on the streets (as if that somehow made it OK). Turns out a fair few people are though, and rather a lot more than were when the Conservatives came to power...

Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Meanwhile rough sleeping is up by 15% over the last year, and has nearly tripled since 2010. When May was asked about homeless children at PMQs a few weeks back, her response was that they weren't sleeping on the streets (as if that somehow made it OK). Turns out a fair few people are though, and rather a lot more than were when the Conservatives came to power...

Shocking state of affairs, I wonder how much can be done about rough sleeping as opposed to homelessness.

A significant no of rough sleepers have addiction or mental health problems.

I suppose we will see, from April local authorities have to take action with any case of risk of homelessness - currently there is a priority list you have to be on to be actioned.

Why is there seldom a connection between homelessness and lack of employment?

People are people and must eat and drink and find a roof for themselves.  There are more and more of them and less and less of the thing that a society designs for itself to cater for the needs of those people to eat and drink and have the roof over their heads.... work, jobs, steady income.

More people, more technology; requiring less and less human workers.  Everyone talking to 'helpers' in India or China or Africa to try to solve local problems with local systems and services.  Where once a real building with real helpers offered these kinds of maintenance help and assist services, now technology tries to create less and less need for those real people in real places with real human reactions to queries or complaints.

Complain about that scenario and you get told you're only a yesterday man who doesn't understand the economics of competitiveness - i.e. if other nations/companies have less workers and more technology to cut their employment costs and increase their profits...then why should we/us/ourselves voluntarily decide to buck the trend and reintroduce the concept of real buildings with real humans serving everyday systems and services?  

Not everyone can be a coffee server in Starbucks.  Not everyone needs a sandwich or a bag of chips. So attack the sources of unemployment...the real ones - technology and pan-world telecentres.  Then there might be more people who can actually and seriously help themselves get that roof, and help the economy too.  Earners are spenders.

What is the actual suggestion here to create more jobs?

And, given unemployment rate is at a record low, whilst employment is at a record high they need to be good well paid jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42781377

BBC article features a number of homeless people who are in employment - from the sample they feature quite a varied cross-section of population ending up homeless, not just the usual stereotypes and issues.

Worth pointing out that the shambolic Universal credit rollout won't be helping the homeless figures...

Wages aren't keeping up with inflation for many...

As Ent pointed out addiction is another major contributor....Probably in many cases inter-related as depression and stress lead people to seek false comforts..

Sobering statistics for sure..

MrInvisible wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42781377

BBC article features a number of homeless people who are in employment - from the sample they feature quite a varied cross-section of population ending up homeless, not just the usual stereotypes and issues.

Not much of a surprise. Minimum wage wouldn't pay my rent/bills. Zero hours contracts I have no idea what people do.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May's odds slashed from 3/1 to 5/4 to go this year...

Speculation that the 48 Tory mp letters needed for no confidence in leader has reached the mid 40s...

And still 6/1 available on Rees-Mogg to be next Tory leader.

If he gets to the final two of a Tory leadership contest, at which point the members vote, he’ll walk it.

Scottrf wrote:

MrInvisible wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42781377

BBC article features a number of homeless people who are in employment - from the sample they feature quite a varied cross-section of population ending up homeless, not just the usual stereotypes and issues.

Not much of a surprise. Minimum wage wouldn't pay my rent/bills. Zero hours contracts I have no idea what people do.

I had a friend doing agency work on a zero hours basis and the stress got to him bad. He was in a position where he was afraid to miss a shift for any reason incase he didnt get given anymore. Thankfully he's got a decent full time position in an ASDA warehouse now - more healthy for it. Zero hours contracts are criminal.

It will be Remainer v Brexiteer...

Doubt Mogg reaches the final 2...His parliamentary colleagues will see to that..

Rudd v Boris most likely.

Agree that if Mogg got on the ballot he wins by landslide...He is most popular with members..

Further to the point:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/25/uk-workers-chronically-broke-study-economic-insecurity

The issue isn't the lack of jobs, it's the lack of well-paid, secure, jobs. Wages haven't kept up with inflation, not even close, so real terms pay cuts for most. I think I'm right in saying also that rents and house prices aren't included in the inflation statistics, so the reality is probably much worse than the numbers suggest.

Add in of course the dismantling of the welfare state (as Truss points out, UC isn't helping, with multiple reports of landlords refusing to take on tenants who rely on it, plus the ludicrous 6 week pause), and you get the current situation.

Unsurprisingly, the right-wing media are ignoring this story completely (no mention of it on the telegraph or times websites), and even the BBC have mostly buried it (it's on the "news" page, but not the main page, and under the headline "Rough sleeping hits hard on local high streets" rather than any mention of increases). Instead, depressingly predictively, the main headlines are all about the crime figures (also on a sharp rise, though there seems to be a dispute whether it's crime that has gone up, or just the reporting of it).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It will be Remainer v Brexiteer...

Doubt Mogg reaches the final 2...His parliamentary colleagues will see to that..

Rudd v Boris most likely.

Agree that if Mogg got on the ballot he wins by landslide...He is most popular with members..

Rudd is on shaky ground as she’s in a marginal seat (majority about 400). Boris doesn’t seem to be too popular with his colleagues, either.

SecretFly wrote:Why is there seldom a connection between homelessness and lack of employment?

People are people and must eat and drink and find a roof for themselves.  There are more and more of them and less and less of the thing that a society designs for itself to cater for the needs of those people to eat and drink and have the roof over their heads.... work, jobs, steady income.

More people, more technology; requiring less and less human workers.  Everyone talking to 'helpers' in India or China or Africa to try to solve local problems with local systems and services.  Where once a real building with real helpers offered these kinds of maintenance help and assist services, now technology tries to create less and less need for those real people in real places with real human reactions to queries or complaints.

Complain about that scenario and you get told you're only a yesterday man who doesn't understand the economics of competitiveness - i.e. if other nations/companies have less workers and more technology to cut their employment costs and increase their profits...then why should we/us/ourselves voluntarily decide to buck the trend and reintroduce the concept of real buildings with real humans serving everyday systems and services?  

Not everyone can be a coffee server in Starbucks.  Not everyone needs a sandwich or a bag of chips.  So attack the sources of unemployment...the real ones - technology and pan-world telecentres.  Then there might be more people who can actually and seriously help themselves get that roof, and help the economy too.  Earners are spenders.

I knew it would happen at some time - I'm with you on the above. Still, as long as people value cheaper 'product', it won't change, and there's no serious evidence that it'll change anytime soon.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It will be Remainer v Brexiteer...

Doubt Mogg reaches the final 2...His parliamentary colleagues will see to that..

Rudd v Boris most likely.

Agree that if Mogg got on the ballot he wins by landslide...He is most popular with members..

That bad eh? Don't know enough about Rudd really, but the idea of the other two (one a self-serving buffoon and the other a no-one of no real experience, but who can speak well) becoming leader of the Tories should be enough to seriously worry the wider Nation.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think I'm right in saying also that rents and house prices aren't included in the inflation statistics, so the reality is probably much worse than the numbers suggest.

They are in the retail prices index, but not consumer prices index.

Scottrf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think I'm right in saying also that rents and house prices aren't included in the inflation statistics, so the reality is probably much worse than the numbers suggest.

They are in the retail prices index, but not consumer prices index.

Thanks for that. I think I'm right in saying that when people say "inflation is at 3%" they mean the CPI based figure? Which means my initial point remains, i.e. if we were taking house prices (particularly rents) into account wages would need to rise much faster to keep up, since rent and mortgage repayments are what (most) people spend rather a lot of their money on.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think I'm right in saying also that rents and house prices aren't included in the inflation statistics, so the reality is probably much worse than the numbers suggest.

They are in the retail prices index, but not consumer prices index.

Thanks for that. I think I'm right in saying that when people say "inflation is at 3%" they mean the CPI based figure? Which means my initial point remains, i.e. if we were taking house prices (particularly rents) into account wages would need to rise much faster to keep up, since rent and mortgage repayments are what (most) people spend rather a lot of their money on.

CPI is the one most often referred to I'd say, yes, but 'inflation' is often used to described them interchangeably. RPI for example was talked about at the start of the year when talking about Rail Season tickets.

Certainly aligning for a no confidence vote. JRM has just said tone of negotiation from UK needs to improve.

If we get to a leadership contest, it will likely be Rudd and a Brexiter, not sure it'll be Boris. Gove would be my pick. Rudd would win the parliamentary party, but Gove the membership and thus win. Also agree JRM won't make final 2.

Philip Hammond running the gauntlet tonight..

Conservatives in disarray...Labour fighting eachother for control of the party...Lib dems screwed because they spent five years arselicking Tories....Ukip leader's bit on the side is the most high profile and interesting member of its party

More tragic than a Greek tragedy.

Good fun though..

Maybe it's time for a complete change? Tories to fragment into centre-right and Nazi parties. Labour to fragment into centre-left (merge with Lib-Dems under new name?) and Stalinists, sorry, meant to say Momentum. UKIP to disappear up its own ariss. Time for a PR system?

Certainly, this intra-party sh!tty naval gazing, at a time when the Country could seriously do without it, is a right pain in the backside. Can anyone remember a time of such minnows for politicians? I can't. This lot have no decent visions and they're children to boot. **** 'em.

Would you want to go into public life at the moment?

I wouldn't be an MP for all the tea in china.

£80k plus expenses...18 weeks off a year..

I could be tempted..

Ent wrote:Would you want to go into public life at the moment?

I wouldn't be an MP for all the tea in china.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not like they're helping themselves are they? i've come across primary school kids that're more professional than most of that shower. We've got potentially one of the biggest political and economic events of recent times on the horizon and all they can come up with is this pathetic internecine party bickering.

Then again it's easier to criticise than do.

Which Tories are Nazis?

Scottrf wrote:Then again it's easier to criticise than do.

Not if you've got a stutter.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:Would you want to go into public life at the moment?

I wouldn't be an MP for all the tea in china.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not like they're helping themselves are they? i've come across primary school kids that're more professional than most of that shower. We've got potentially one of the biggest political and economic events of recent times on the horizon and all they can come up with is this pathetic internecine party bickering.

This is the era of the easily offended and the twitter lynch mob, you can't do anything in public life without someone trawling through decades of your life looking for something the holier than thou nobodies can start a witch hunt over.

I'd love people to just start ignoring this guff and just get on with what they are doing/their job instead of placating idiots.

Scottrf wrote:Then again it's easier to criticise than do.

Yep, absolutely correct .

Dave. wrote:Which Tories are Nazis?

Interesting that you were selective about my deliberate exaggeration. Not interested in whom I think might be Stalinists then? You know the point I was making, so why ask that?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Dave. wrote:Which Tories are Nazis?

Interesting that you were selective about my deliberate exaggeration. Not interested in whom I think might be Stalinists then? You know the point I was making, so why ask that?

Because you complained about "pathetic internecine party bickering" and called people Nazis and Stalinists?

Ent wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:Would you want to go into public life at the moment?

I wouldn't be an MP for all the tea in china.

I hear what you're saying, but it's not like they're helping themselves are they? i've come across primary school kids that're more professional than most of that shower. We've got potentially one of the biggest political and economic events of recent times on the horizon and all they can come up with is this pathetic internecine party bickering.

This is the era of the easily offended and the twitter lynch mob, you can't do anything in public life without someone trawling through decades of your life looking for something the holier than thou nobodies can start a witch hunt over.

I'd love people to just start ignoring this guff and just get on with what they are doing/their job instead of placating idiots.

Yep, true and definitely not one of the better things about 'social media'. Perhaps if they actually did anything of moment competently, the 'guff' wouldn't attract such interest?

I can get the link between Momentum and Stalinist policies. I can't get the link between certain Tories and Nazis.

Dave. wrote:I can get the link between Momentum and Stalinist policies. I can't get the link between certain Tories and Nazis.

If you don't agree with his point of views you're either stupid (leavers/Trump supporters) or evil racists (Tories apparently).

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Dave. wrote:Which Tories are Nazis?

Interesting that you were selective about my deliberate exaggeration. Not interested in whom I think might be Stalinists then? You know the point I was making, so why ask that?

Because you complained about "pathetic internecine party bickering" and called people Nazis and Stalinists?

Well, what part of what they're doing isn't "pathetic internecine party bickering"? I enquired why the question about 'Nazis', but not 'Stalinists'. You know, it was damned obvious I was exaggerating, but suggesting it wouldn't be so ridiculous to suggest they may be future splits. I also picked on both the left and right of the spectrum equally.

For the easily offended: Maybe the Tories will split into centrists (slightly right of) and right-wingers, whereas Labour will split into centrists (slightly left of) and left-wingers?

Better?