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

[HanoiVillan]

35 minutes ago, Nicho said:

This is correct we are now the non EU country and Germany in the EU so they can't make an individual trade deal with non EU states. We cannot make an individual deal with them the same way that when we were in we couldn't make a deal with Brazil for example.

not aimed at you but people seem very confused by the truth that we still have a large trade base in Europe and will have to negotiate. The EU block hold all the cards in the negotiations as we really need the trade we get from those nations. 

We are not in a position of power in these negotiations and once article 50 is triggered we will have even less. May either needs to wait until she is settled and deal with comcequences or do it now and hope that she is able to deal with it, either way so e huge negotions and decisions need to be made.

Not just yet. (Though obviously I know what you mean)

[Chindie]

The new Environment Secretary is generally opposed to measures designed to tackle climate change.

Amongst other things that are quite anti-environment.

I suppose as a mother she knows best though.

This cabinet is quite sinister. It's largely the harder right of the party under a woman who is power mad.

This is going to be grim.

[StefanAVFC]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/andrea-leadsom-suggests-men-should-not-be-nannies-because-they-may-be-paedophiles-a3296421.html

 

Quote

Andrea Leadsom suggests men should not be nannies because they may be paedophiles

 

Andrea Leadsom has suggested men should not be hired to look after young children because they may be paedophiles.

During a discussion on the challenges faced by parents, the newly-appointed Environment Secretary said it would be "sensible" not to appoint males for childcare duties.

Her comments were made during an interview with The Times before she dropped out of the Tory leadership race to hand the keys to Number 10 to Theresa May. 

Brexit-backer Mrs Leadsom sparked fury after she appeared to suggest in the same interview that being a mother meant she would be a better Prime Minister than Theresa May, who cannot have children. 

The Times today revealed further comments made during the interview in a discussion on childcare.

"As an employer we’re not, let’s face it, most of us don’t employ men as nannies, most of us don’t," she said. 

Now you can call that sexist, I call that cautious and very sensible when you look at the stats

Andrea Leadsom

"Now you can call that sexist, I call that cautious and very sensible when you look at the stats. Your odds are stacked against you if you employ a man.

"We know paedophiles are attracted to working with children. I’m sorry but they’re the facts."

 

Legimately mental.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Yes, because female paedophiles do not exist, do they?

Leadsom is a total, unmitigated idiot.

[Chindie]

Dangerously stupid. May's judgement immediately called into question that she's anywhere near the cabinet, but I would bet she's not there long.

[choffer]

From today's Spectator:

[TrentVilla]

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Dangerously stupid. May's judgement immediately called into question that she's anywhere near the cabinet, but I would bet she's not there long.

I think she should be in the cabinet.

One with the doors nailed shut and put in the loft.

[HanoiVillan]

On 7/9/2016 at 17:43, HanoiVillan said:

There’s this one celebrity, Rosie O’Donnell, a talk show host, and she said this: “I don’t know anything about Afghanistan, but I know it’s full of terrorists, speaking as a mother.” So what is this "speaking as a mother" then? Is that a euphemism for "talking out of my arse"? "Suspending rational thought for a moment"?

-Bill Bailey

It's not related to the Tory party, but I've spotted another abuse of 'speaking as a mother'. In Australia, TV host Sonia Kruger has said she wants Trump's ban on Muslim immigration to be adopted there, as Muslims cause terrorism. She specifically claims that Japan doesn't have terrorism because it doesn't have Muslims, which must come as a surprise to the victims of Aum Shinrikyo, but there you go. After her on-air statement, she took to Twitter:

 

[snowychap]

Bulk data collection only lawful in serious crime cases, ECJ indicates

Quote

Initial finding from top EU court backs David Davis and Tom Watson and could have serious impact on snooper’s charter

Retaining data from telephone calls and emails is legal only if law enforcement agencies use it to tackle serious crime, the EU’s highest court has indicated.

The preliminary finding by the advocate general of the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg came in response to a legal challenge that was brought initially by David Davis, when he was a backbench Conservative, and Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ’s bulk interception of call records and online messages.

Davis, one of the most vociferous critics of the state’s powers to collect data on its citizens, quietly withdrew from the case after his appointment to the cabinet. Many had commented on his involvement in the case at the EU’s highest court after he was appointed secretary of state for leaving the EU.

In an opinion likely to be followed by the full court, the advocate general, Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe, clarified EU law after the two MPs successfully argued in British courts that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 was illegal.

The ECJ’s advocate general said: “Solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences and the smooth conduct of proceedings other than criminal proceedings … are not.” Only the data associated with calls and emails is retained, not the content of messages.

The preliminary ruling appears to bring European data retention practices closer into line with the debate over the passage of the UK’s investigatory powers bill, nicknamed the snooper’s charter, over what safeguards should be imposed for bulk interception and retention of data.

The court’s final decision will be delivered in the coming months. The vast majority of judgments follow the line set out by the advocate general.

Welcoming the finding, Watson said: “This legal opinion shows the prime minister was wrong to pass legislation when she was home secretary that allows the state to access huge amounts of personal data without evidence of criminality or wrongdoing.

“Labour has already secured important concessions, but I hope the government she leads will now revisit it. The opinion makes it clear that information including browsing history and phone data should not be made available to the security services and other state bodies without independent authorisation. The security services have an important job to do, but judicial oversight is vital if we are to maintain the right balance between civil liberties and state power.”

Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred to the ECJ.

...more on link

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

I just caught a brief section on the 6 music news saying that Universal Credit is now not expecteded to be fully rolled out until 2022.

If true (I guess they may be being optimistic with 2022 or perhaps it was incorrectly reported or misheard), Mr Smith's brainchild from 2011 is now expected to take another 6 years to be fully rolled out.

That may well have budget implications as I seem to remember a large amount of the 'savings' expected over the remainder of this parliament were coming from moving people over to UC (I may be wrong).

Edited July 20, 2016 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Theresa May saying, "Remind him of anybody." in the way that she did was rather sinister.

 

 

 

 

[Xann]

Quote

 

The release of historic documents to the National Archives often provides revelatory stories, and the latest batch covering the 1986-88 period are no exception...

... But there is a lot of information from the period that we cannot know about because, as the Guardian’s Owen Bowcott reports, “large numbers of files have been withheld from the latest releases.”

They include royal and security files; the proceedings of the Profumo inquiry; the Peter Wright “Spycatcher” case; most defence records; Anglo-Irish negotiations; and documents about the business dealings of Thatcher’s son, Mark...

Some of the decisions are very odd. For example, what can be the reason for withholding 45 transcripts of evidence to Lord Denning’s 1963 inquiry into the Profumo affair for 84 years?

None of the leading characters involved are living. Indeed, almost everyone connected to the case is no longer with us. It’s a disgrace to keep the files secret.

I also agree with the Daily Mirror, which is particularly exercised by the files on Mark Thatcher remaining secret. Two of them - “Cementation contract: Mark Thatcher and the Omanis” - will be “retained” until 2053.

Two others - “Mark Thatcher and the Omanis; other allegations against Mark Thatcher” and “Request by Electronic Data Systems to employ Mark Thatcher” - have been “temporarily retained” with no date for their release.

According to the Mirror, the decision to keep the files closed “was ultimately taken by former culture secretary John Whittingdale”, one-time political secretary to Thatcher.

It moved the Mirror to comment that “the Tory establishment is guilty of looking after its own by hiding details of Mark Thatcher’s controversial business dealings on mum Margaret’s coat-tails when she was Prime Minister.”

The paper argues that “the public has an absolute right to know what happened, however embarrassing the facts may prove to be for some people still alive and the deceased ex-PM’s reputation.” It continues:

“Mark Thatcher’s personal enrichment from his dealings with the Omanis in the Middle East was a cause of great concern in the 1980s and what has emerged since is not pretty."

 

Grauniad

[Davkaus]

They've confirmed the withdrawal of bursaries for nurses from next year, when most trusts are suffering from a chronic shortage of nurses.

£6k a year pulled from student nurses, when they spend half of the year working full time in a hospital. they were already being paid below minimum wage for that work. Now they'll be paying to work, well, if people continue signing up, but considering there's already a shortage...probably not.

The dismantling of the NHS continues. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Davkaus

[Xann]

It's double trouble with Brexit. There's plenty Europeans working for the NHS.

Trainee nurses will likely end up in debt. The powers that be like that. Keep 'em afraid, keep 'em in line.

At the same time it creates a market down the line for their chums in private medicine, that they pay to advise them.

 

[chrisp65]

A swift smooth hand over of power, versus months of in fighting played out direct in to the lense of camera 6.

Quote

Conservative 43% (+4)

Labour 27% (-2)

UKIP 13% (-1)

Liberal Democrat 8% (-1)

SNP 4% (nc)

Green 4% (nc)

Plaid Cymru 1% (nc)

Latest ICM Poll

 

[lapal_fan]

heh. I remember the Lib Dems.

[Davkaus]

We're actually going to have another 9 years of austerity aren't we?

[Dr_Pangloss]

51 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

We're actually going to have another 9 years of austerity aren't we?

Brexit makes austerity extremely unlikely. Government will have to spend more money and/or cut taxes (the later being in keeping with the traditional Tory mentality).

[HanoiVillan]

Looks like Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox is continuing his stellar career of public service:

'When Conservative MP and former defence secretary Liam Fox launched a new charity initiative in June 2012 to provide free holiday accommodation to military families, it seemed to get off to a flying start. Within a month, Fox was announcing that “300 weeks or six years” of free accommodation had been secured already, and since then he and the charity, Give Us Time, have enjoyed the backing of aristocracy figures and glowing coverage in newspapers and society magazines.

. . . 

BuzzFeed News can reveal that Give Us Time has helped fewer than 130 families in total in its first three years – less than half as many week-long trips as Fox said were donated in the charity’s first month alone – giving away less than £110,000 of holiday stays in that time despite being awarded a £500,000 grant from the Treasury.

. . . 

The BuzzFeed News investigation has also established that the charity and one of its donors together funded a week-long trip to Bulgaria, including flights and accommodation, for two of Fox’s office staff – even though its policy was to not pay for the flights of the military families it was helping.'

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/liam-fox-faces-questions-over-charity-he-set-up-to-help-mili?utm_term=.fpg3rrDyw#.xyV1VVQlm

[Xann]

Quote

I agree with the Daily Mail. I had better repeat that in case you think you have misread it: I agree with the Daily Mail.

Its assault on the honours system this week has been first class, echoing the Guardian’s disgust, which it expressed in a fine leading article on Monday.

Over four days, the Mail has devoted three front pages, three editorials and a damning op-ed piece to David Cameron’s ill-advised resignation awards.

And its argument has been compelling every time, again in line with the Guardian. Rarely, do the two newspapers agree - but, despite their political differences, this matter unites them.

Both have used similar descriptions in their trenchant criticisms of the system: devalued, debased, discredited, egregious, grubby, tawdry, tainted, tarnished. Both have referred to Cameron’s “chumocracy.” Both have pointed to the absurdity of giving awards to Samantha Cameron’s stylist and other assorted hangers-on.

The Guardian has made more of its opposition to gongs for donors, while the Mail has made more of a case against rewarding those who advocated remain in the EU referendum, particularly Labour’s Will Straw.

Grauniad