The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sorry to come back to this, but I'm not sure you're right, really on the bolded part. Apologies for not being too up on my history, but I kind of assumed that while (I guess) the various parts of the UK voluntarily agreed to be a Union, it was then turned int an act of Parliament and Law, so that for it to be undone it's a little more complex than "we (e.g. Scotland) don't wanna be part of it anymore" - Parliament would have to vote on it, or consent in some way. The other thing, I perceive, is that it's not a Union of equals - I mean if England said "we don't wanna be part of it anymore" then the impact would be more significant than if any of the other parts wanted to "leave", through pure size and contributions into the pot. It's more unlikely that England would say that, than Scotland or Wales I'd imagine, for all sorts of reasons, particularly with a Tory government.

Well this answer could be dissertation sized!

Very briefly as I’m midway through a satsuma…

The voluntary union of equals only applies to the England / Scotland bit. There’s no such argument to be had elsewhere. People will argue over the bit of history they want to lean on but essentially there is no written codified ‘thing’ that sets down what equal means within the union and the various acts of union. Some will suggest equal means the Scots or the English can decide unilaterally the agreement has run its course, others will say that requires a vote in Westminster. There are obvious flaws in both arguments. If you take the brit nat view, it requires consent from Westminster. With Westminster rightly being heavily weighted to English votes that means England can leave whenever it wants, Scotland never could without English consent. 

England can leave, it has that right, in that nobody has any right or power to stop them. But I would strongly challenge the assertion that England leaving would have more impact. Contributions to the pot is an interesting one isn’t it? Are you including energy and water in that assertion? Are you including oil? Nuclear submarine bases? Or just tax revenue? It’s tricky for the areas outside the centre to contribute more tax when tax has historically been spent centrally improving infrastructure centrally. A few hundred years of coal export profits being used to improve the sewers of Manchester will tend to skew future incomes. I doubt an independent Wales would have contributed £8 billion of its budget allocation to HS2, had it been given a choice.

But really that’s all irrelevant, you’ve come up with a sensible response to the subject, which people can choose to agree or disagree with. Why couldn’t the Prime Minister?

Then you’ve got the fight that just starting over parliamentary powers to change the age of trans certification in Scotland. That’ll be interesting. He’s going to need to swat up.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I would strongly challenge the assertion that England leaving would have more impact

Fair enough. My reason for thinking so is that (as with NI) England leaving would cause all sorts of trouble on the Island of Ireland - the Throbby DUP types would go mental. England being the most populous part of the UK, having that London as part of it, Westminster having the main "control" currently over the UK, the Bank of England controlling currency, the nations diplomats and so on being essentially London based and largely "English" and the perception/confusion abroad around England being Britain..and so on. 56 million "English" leaving seems to carry more weight to me than 2 million NI, 3 million Welsh or 5 million Scots. But others may argue along different lines.

To get back on subject, the break up of the UK seems more likely due to Tory party Brexity games and general horribleness than at any time in living memory.

[ml1dch]

36 minutes ago, blandy said:

To get back on subject, the break up of the UK seems more likely due to Tory party Brexity games and general horribleness than at any time in living memory.

I'm definitely curious to see what impact a Labour government has on polling of that sort of thing. My gut feeling is that there is large chunk of people (particularly in Scotland) who don't really have strong opinions on constitutional matters and just want to vote for the most obvious anti-Tory option. 

And as soon as they are not there anymore, that might dilute a bit of the SNP hegemony. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by ml1dch

[KentVillan]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Fair enough. My reason for thinking so is that (as with NI) England leaving would cause all sorts of trouble on the Island of Ireland - the Throbby DUP types would go mental. England being the most populous part of the UK, having that London as part of it, Westminster having the main "control" currently over the UK, the Bank of England controlling currency, the nations diplomats and so on being essentially London based and largely "English" and the perception/confusion abroad around England being Britain..and so on. 56 million "English" leaving seems to carry more weight to me than 2 million NI, 3 million Welsh or 5 million Scots. But others may argue along different lines.

To get back on subject, the break up of the UK seems more likely due to Tory party Brexity games and general horribleness than at any time in living memory.

I agree, was going to say earlier, I'd be interested to see how much all this stuff changes with a change of government.

Scotland was traditionally a Labour stronghold, and the big lurch towards independence has occurred under a long period of Tory rule. It accentuates the differences between Scotland and England, and makes Westminster look much more out of step with Scotland.

[Genie]

Rishi has had to apologise for not wearing his seatbelt whilst doing a video for the ‘gram about levelling up  

[Davkaus]

No fine then?  

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

No fine then?  

another one…

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

No fine then?  

They should do that thing where the fine is proportional to your income. If it was based on his entire wealth they could probably use the money to pay the nurses salary demands.

[Davkaus]

While the PM should never be above the law, in this case I applaud his actions, and I'd encourage him to continue to keep the seatbelt off.

He should also show leadership, determination and courage by not looking when he crosses the street.

[StefanAVFC]

Ah yes, Katy who went to a 20k a year sixth form.

[Davkaus]

Is his point that it's acceptable for university educated professionals to need to live in a room in a shared house?

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Is his point that it's acceptable for university educated professionals to need to live in a room in a shared house?

For 775 quid a month  

[OutByEaster?]

Her father is a Brigadier, was former CEO of the British Army and is currently COO of York Minster.

Her school was £20k a term, not a year.

The poor girl has not just been exposed by her pathetic boss to make a political point about people he hates and doesn't understand, she's also exposed the bizarre takeover of the Tory party by the aristocracy and multi-millionaires..

How much do we reckon she's worth, £10m? £20m?

Does he not know who she is?

People voted for this moron.

[bickster]

He's also pointing out that he's underpaying his staff with our money

[Genie]

I’m guessing she also manages to bag plenty of her outgoings on the expenses ticket. 

[StefanAVFC]

That much money invested in education to earn less than an average salary in London whilst living out of the room.

Living the dream.

Or next Tory MP.

[Genie]

53 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Ah yes, Katy who went to a 20k a year sixth form.

It’s another why for the “why do politicians still use Twitter” pile.

They NEVER come out of it well. 

It’s like they don’t know that people can comment on their posts.

[Xann]

Quote

 

Don’t let them talk to you about freedom. This government is stripping out fundamental liberties with the speed and determination you would expect in the aftermath of a military coup. Knowing that their days in office are numbered, the Conservatives seem to be snuffing out democracy as quickly as they can.

Even before the latest amendment, the public order bill was the most repressive legislation of the modern era, potentially criminalising all meaningful protest. If Rishi Sunak’s new proposal is passed, protests can be stopped before they begin on the grounds that they might be “disruptive”. Disruptive protest was redefined by last year’s Police Act to include noise. Now the definition is being further extended to incorporate “slow marching”. This Minority Report amendment puts us on the wrong side of the law before we even raise our hands in objection.

At the same time, the government is rushing an anti-union bill through parliament that could roll back a century of progress in the workplace. It permits the business secretary, Grant Shapps, to demand “minimum service levels” in the public and service sectors. As the scope of this demand is not defined by the bill, “minimum service levels” are whatever he says they are. His arbitrary powers could, in effect, make industrial action illegal.

This legislation is justified by the government on the grounds that ambulance strikes “result in patchy emergency care for the British people”. Emergency care is patchy all right, but not as a result of strikes. Long waits for ambulances, critical incidents in hospitals, schools heading towards bankruptcy, railways in permanent meltdown and rivers full of shit are the result not of industrial action but of gross misrule by a government that has starved public services of funds while failing to demand effective minimum service levels from private providers.

 

Monbiot, Grauniad

[StefanAVFC]

33 minutes ago, Genie said:

It’s another why for the “why do politicians still use Twitter” pile.

They NEVER come out of it well. 

It’s like they don’t know that people can comment on their posts.

Funny thing about 30p Lee is that he specifically joined Twitter after saying how shit it was, in order to, pretty-much, shitpost like this.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

I’m guessing she also manages to bag plenty of her outgoings on the expenses ticket. 

Do t forget all the tax payer subsidised food and booze in the workplace