BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread

Subject: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Barb'ry
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 09:27 AM

Well, here we go again!

Mod rules:

No personal insults
No dragging up the same points again and again and again
Stay as polite as you can be...
Respect each other, even if your political opinions differ.
No racism, sexism or other isms

Over to you....

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 09:45 AM

And just in time for the great Brexit debate to start up again. Oh joy!

Coronavirus UK live: No 10 claims Covid-19 crisis strengthens need for UK to be free of EU regulation after 2020

[The spokesman] told journalists:

We will not ask to extend the transition. And, if the EU asks, we will say no. Extending the transition would simply prolong the negotiations, prolong business uncertainty, and delay the moment of control of our borders. It would also keep us bound by EU legislation at a point when we need legislative and economic flexibility to manage the UK response to the coronavirus pandemic.

What is also interesting about this comment is that it shows No 10 is now arguing that coronavirus strengthens the case for the UK to break away from regulatory alignment with the EU. Opposing regulatory alignment could end up with the UK having to negotiate with the EU on WTO terms (what used to be called a “no-deal” Brexit), although of course the government says it wants a Canada-style trade deal.


I have said elsewhere that in any sane world we would see whether we still wanted to leave in 2020 in the light of the delays to negotiation that the virus has caused, not to speak of the economic effects for both the UK and the rest of European. Not necessarily change our mind, but at least give it a clear headed analysis in the light of events. So I would expect at the least some account of why we have stayed on the same course, rather than a simple assertion that nothing relevant has happened. Given the different responses of countries in the EU, this "legislative and economic flexibility to manage the UK response to the coronavirus pandemic" seems 'a figment of the heat-oppressed brain.' You have economic freedom now, you had it before 2016 and before January 2020 and you will have it in future, for example.

I also said I did not guarantee we lived in a sane world.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 10:35 AM

Thanks Barb'ry.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 10:47 AM

Good idea of Pete's over on the closed thread. Brief intro from everyone to help keep this thread civil. May work.

I'm Dave and not really a gnome. Born and bred in Lancashire but embraced the dark side and moved to Yorkshire 7 years back. Recently retired from the day job. Sing a bit. Wrestle an Anglo concertina but it usually beats me. Learning the chest piano. Enjoy hiking, folking and drinking :-D

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 10:59 AM

I'm another Dave, originally from Middlesbrough but have moved N,E,S & W (in the UK) since then. Until further notice I live in Southampton, Hampshire. Mainly sing unaccompanied either solo (in folk clubs) or in choirs (tenor, though those who know more say bass-baritone. I don't argue.)

Graduated in Mathematics but have been involved in all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff (including epidemiology modelling, but that was many decades ago.)

Passing interest in life in general, and as a result of lock-in I am between about 5% and 90% of four online courses.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 12:09 PM

Thanks Dave.

Going on to politics and, hopefully, not breaking rule number 2, would any right wing colleague care to comment on the points I made in the last thread.

The lies Boris Johnson and the government have told as detailed in boris-johnson-lies.com

The running down of the NHS over the last 10 years that has resulted in a service unable to cope with the current crisis

The inactivity of the government in the early days of the crisis against the WHO recommendations

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 12:14 PM

Well I've always been completely open about who I am and where I live. I've been on a number of forums and I've never used a pseudonym. I don't believe in it. Though I have lived a few miles outside Bude for 33 years, following 16 years spent in and around London, I'm an ex-Lancashire lad from Radcliffe, I went to school in Bolton and I still have the accent to prove it. I was a science teacher in secondary schools for many years. My science background has occasionally helped me to see through some of the pseudo-science bullshit peddled here. I live in a nice house with a big garden (needs a few bob spending on it...) close to the sea but that doesn't stop me from being a proud, dyed-in-the-wool leftie, and there aren't many of them round here!

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 12:23 PM

How about the isms socialism? Or "Global Regulationism"?

Captain Tom Moore seems a nice chap but in a good nation in a good United Nations there would be no need for private (COMPETING) charities where, if a celebrity gets involved e.g., some get more than they need & others not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 12:44 PM

Fresh new thread, a fair-minded communicative British mod,
and a chance to start anew with positivity and tolerance..

I am pfr, I aspire to be a model [I could ask DMcG for modelling career advice],
a Mr Universe Body Building Champion [over 80s division - must get back in the gym if I survive covid]],
and an ambassador for World Peace.
I like animals, and find two or three people tolerable in short bursts..

I once stood next to Bob Geldof for a few seconds in an art gallery,
in which time he learnt most of his noble humanitarianism from me..
I'm not one to boast though...

I'm anti religion, but believe that when god created the electric guitar and amplification,
he/she/it/they intended it as a kick up the arse for folk music..

I'm always some sort of folkie / indy / outsider musician, and definitely don't want to be a pop star..
[ok.. I'm too lazy to put in the graft and networking arselicking.. and not as boy band good looking as I used to be..]

I live in a miserable town in Scrumpyshire,
and I'm only 61, so I'm sort of most of your younger smartarse work mate...
[not that I'm being ageist, you old gits..]

I'm an over educated working class son of a council estate factory trades unionist, and a care worker/cleaner..

When I left home to seek my fortune, [gave up looking long ago..]
I was informally adopted and raised by middle class militant feminists..

After what felt like a lifetime in a cult,
I escaped their ideologically corrective domination when I ran away to London,
and lived in a shared house with rough arse Irish and Scottish builders,
who swiftly and harshly re-educated me in how to be a proper bloke...

I like Westerns, and Carry On style humour - the intellectual stuff..
Obviously I suffer inner identity conflicts between my progressive politics
and love of non PC vintage comedy, and John Wayne...

.. and as much as I moan about Yankee cultural imperialism and political interference,
I'm not actually anti American.. far from it..
[just to reassure USA mudcat mates...]

I weigh about 4 stone heavier since when I was last fit enough to go to the gym..
and that is after stopping drinking and eating kebabs...

Anything else...???

Oh yes, I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,
but can't sing, and am actually to much of a misanthrope,
Even though I'm a life long humanist..

Note: I admit some of the above is not entirely serious, and may be slightly enhanced
with Artistic license...
Bob Geldof may disagree with my account of us standing next to each other looking at a painting..
and his Legal team demand I mention he is very tall,
they claim 6' 2?...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 01:19 PM

PFR - :-D

Barb'ry. Can we have another rule? Walkaboutverse is not allowed to turn everything into an opportunity to push his poems. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 01:51 PM

Like Steve & Dave I too started life in the County Palatine of Lancashire. I started working life, after Grammar school, as a chef. At the age of 25 I realised that I really did not want to do for another 40 years so got myself an education. Firstly at Oxford and then a second qualification in Bradford.

Like many Lancastrians I moved to Yorkshire as a missionary. The aim of the mission was to introduce some Lancashire class and culture to a backward area.

I have to say that although I have studiously carried out this work for 38 years I have thoroughly failed in my endeavours.

That said ………. you can't educate pork. ……….. run for the hills

...again!

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: peteglasgow
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 03:35 PM

'raised in a militant feminist cult?'
'you can't educate pork' but you can put lipstick on it?
'there aren't many lefties round here' - well, i was born north of carlisle but south of the border and have lived a good half of me time in scotland. i'm back in west cumbria now - and though i'm very lucky, it's lovely, but flooding will drive us away if we can sell the house. that and the tories - i'd got used to the popularity of the ukippers round here - i don't mind that so much - but then they all voted tory and we lost a good labour mp to a local thug. my current name on here is a reflection of a moment in time when i wanted to show that workington men are not all what was said. i liked the headline 'workington man will decide the election' but i didn't - they never asked me.
uni in stirling and pgce in trotskyism in bolton. i could go on but we'd better get back to the thread.
i've just been out 'for the clapping' - sort of reluctantly i must admit - does anyone else feel it starts to become a duty - a government thing - the 15 minute hate comes to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 03:59 PM

My name is Iain (the name was taken when I joined mudcat 20years ago, hence the s on the end) I was born in Sussex, moved to Surrey at an early age and since graduating have lived all over the place. I started ss a junior geologist for a Canadian mining company prospecting in Snowdonia, then moved to the oil industry, went into engineering geology in the mid 80s during a downturn, then back to the oil industry in the 90s. Have worked as a consultant since 1985. I believe science should be driven by facts, not consensus. The latter is a tool for politicians
I must congratulate the new mod. Let us hope a new chapter is in the offing, policed firmly and fairly.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 05:32 PM

"Science (from the Latin word scientia)...is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." [wiki]

No mention of "facts" there. That's because facts, if they are true, are true. Science is the pursuit of truth but there are no stepping stones, aka facts, along the way. "Systematic enterprise" refers to the scientific method. One of the tenets thereof is that there can be no certainty, and no "proofs." As for consensus, of course there can be consensus among scientists. There is consensus about anthropogenic climate change and there is consensus about evolution. But consensus doesn't equal truth. Consensus doesn't equal certainty. But consensus does provide us with that working knowledge that allows us to move forward. If you deny that we can move forward because there's no "proof," etc, then let's say that you belong to the Nigel Lawson school of science. Which, basically, is not science at all. There's at least one subscriber to that here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 06:00 PM

@DMcG:
In response to your post on that thread which must not be mentioned you raise a couple of interesting points. My simplistic response is that you demand a black and white answer to subject matter, that at this moment, can only be expressed in shades of grey.
1)Experts: The government has theirs and rightly or wrongly follow their advice. To try to change course midway, before modelling outcomes can be tested, keeps everyone in a permanent limbo. It has to follow cause, effect response. Many of the counter experts rolled out by the media are there simply to advance their party line and attack the government, as are the media.The media are constantly taking an adverserial approach in their line of questioning and trying to find flaws in everything the government says or does. The impact of this is the right dismiss it all as bullshit and the left are baying for blood. Anyone can see this is nonsensical. Whether the opposing experts are correct or the government experts are correct is a total unknown at this stage.I find it hard to believe the opposing experts have better data than the government simply because of the dynamics of the situation. All report to government first, media second.( and if not what the hell is going on?) What course of action was best/worst will not be known until the crisis has abated and all the facts are collated and studied. Only a fool would say the government action is flawless - no country was prepared for this pandemic no matter how thorough the previous gaming may have been.(and internationally the UK was reckoned to be better prepared than most) We will see just how accurate that was some time down the road.
2)Testing:
This presents major problems. Do they work? What is their accuracy and repeatabilty? Are there enough kits, are the mechanisms in place to test, analyse, distribute results, assess priority, repeat test? collate results. Superficially this appears shambolic - so was Dunkirk! How much is due to conflicting advice, the fluidity of the situation, the uncertainty concerning the accuracy of scarce testing kits? That will not be answered for months I suspect.
3)PPE shortages: The fault of government or the fault of NHS
procurement. The NHS employs a host of "experts" in procurement on salaries vastly in excess of the PM. Automatically blaming the government is far too easy - who let procurement off the hook? Sitting on the sidelines carping is a pastime anyone can indulge in. Perhaps sitting in the trenches for a day or two might sweeten their dispositions.
Most of our drug manufacture is offshored, as is PPE, and likely most NHS equipment.
It is sad that the EU does not insist on competitive tendering for strategic items(ie defence) but stategic items to keep patients alive
can be made in Timbuktu for all they care. Globalisation and offshoring is going to have a major poke in the eye when this little lot is over.
4)WHO advice: My expert is better than your expert/your expert is better than my expert. The reality most likely is that there are   no experts. They are all groping in the dark with an unknown quantity, relying on untested models and developing treatments on the fly. It is a shit world we inhabit - getting the right answers takes time. Perhaps some of the ansers are wrong and people have died as a result. You can hardly label it murder. Someone gave it their best shot and was wrong. We have all been there, done that and got the T shirt.
Government does not hold the answers to everything, neither do doctors.
As far as I am aware there have been sufficient ventilators to date. Wether that changes in the weeks to come is unknown.
My prference is for a lot more transparency on carehome deaths and the reasons for nonhospitalisation, and the extent to which the basic day to day running of hospitals has been stopped due to covid-19 patients. Delaying cancer operations and other life threatening issues
also kills. This necessitates a juggling act that must cause sleepless nights for those involved in decision making.
Automatically blaming the government and accusing them of being murderers is nonsense. The virus kills people and despite intensive care and the best of medical attetion people die. 14000 die of flu every year in the UK. The mortality rate for covid-9 will only exceed thise figures tomorrow. If the vulnerablr catch the virus they will die regardless of how much medical science is devoted to their care.
The government is trying to minimise the rate of exposure in order that everyone has equal care. To turn around and accuse the same gvernment of being murderers is somewhat bizarre, as is saying the government has cut funding. The graph of NHS expenditure shows a year on year increase for decades. It rather stifles debate before it has even started if these two accusations are contunually advanced. No democratic government murders its electorate and if a graph shows a clear increase it can hardly be argued it is decreasing at any moment in time.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 06:27 PM

Hmmmm!! Pedantism????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 07:38 PM

Well your post at least doesn't insult anyone, so congrats on that. The rest of the post is rather aimless waffle, and you know it. Take this:

"The reality most likely is that there are no experts. They are all groping in the dark with an unknown quantity, relying on untested models and developing treatments on the fly. It is a shit world we inhabit - getting the right answers takes time. Perhaps some of the ansers are wrong and people have died as a result. You can hardly label it murder. Someone gave it their best shot and was wrong. We have all been there, done that and got the T shirt.
Government does not hold the answers to everything, neither do doctors.
As far as I am aware there have been sufficient ventilators to date. Wether that changes in the weeks to come is unknown.
My prference is for a lot more transparency on carehome deaths and the reasons for nonhospitalisation, and the extent to which the basic day to day running of hospitals has been stopped due to covid-19 patients. Delaying cancer operations and other life threatening issues
also kills. This necessitates a juggling act that must cause sleepless nights for those involved in decision making.
Automatically blaming the government and accusing them of being murderers is nonsense. The virus kills people and despite intensive care and the best of medical attetion people die. 14000 die of flu every year in the UK. The mortality rate for covid-9 will only exceed thise figures..."

Well yes, there are experts. Dismissing "experts" is tabloidism, and we have not "all been there." "The government may not have answers for everything, neither do doctors." What an incredible false equivalence...Yeah, put Raab and Bozo right up there with medical opinion...

No-one has accused the government of murder. Aunt Sally strikes again. I've accused this government of causing unnecessary deaths via negligence and a couldn't-care-less attitude to ordinary people. And I think that's right, and I think it will be confirmed abundantly in the coming weeks and months as we look back on this disaster.

And this:

"My prference is for a lot more transparency on carehome deaths and the reasons for nonhospitalisation..."

Well you don't say. My mum lives in a care home in which there has been a case. I am acutely aware of all the issues surrounding care homes, don't you worry. We need testing and we need kit. Your comment is anodyne waffle, let's face it. But do carry on trying to be nice. Some progress at least. Sorry to be hard-hitting, but you of all people should be able to take it. Do continue to tread carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Apr 20 - 11:55 PM

Most of us are not specialist 'experts',
many of us are less well informed than we need to be.
We can only fall back on our own experience and judgement
of the values, integrity, and past performance of the two main parties.

Educated guesses become the order of the day..
Intelligent conjecture and speculation on plausible probabilities..

It's been said to death that it's pointless 'whatabouting' if Labour were in govt,
in charge of the covid response..
How competent they might be...???

My OPINION is that, as a result of my personal knowledge of Labour and the tories over four decades,
I would be more inclined to TRUST the Labour party's strategies
as being in the best interest of all citizens in our nation, and beyond..

Conversely, I would deeply DISTRUST the tories motives,
suspecting them of following the dictates of their traditional
ideological disregard for the well being of the majority of our citizens.
I would further suspect the tories of being too much under the influence
and control of American right wing political forces, and USA health/finance corporations..

The reality is, The tories, not Labour, are now in govt, responding to covid;
and I must rely on them to keep my loved one's,
myself, and as many other folks as possible, well and alive...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 12:06 AM

.. and yes I an now see grammar and punctuation errors I missed,
but it's gone 5:00am and I need a few hours vital kip
to try to keep my immune system from crashing..
Bugger all this stress and insomnia...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 02:57 AM

I would agree with the principle that, when presented with conflicting stories, we have to decide which is most likely to be true. Sadly, the govenment's, and particularly Boris's, track record for telling the truth is abysmal. So when our present administration says one thing and another official body says another, I believe the other. This is not shooting the messenger or anti-Tory, it is simply the plain fact that I do not trust this government and its leadership. With good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 03:54 AM

Thank you for that, Iains. There is a lot to cover in response, so I will try to do so, but I am sure I will leave some things out.

I think all of us – even our 61 year old youngster! – are long enough in the tooth not to demand a black and white answer in the face of this crisis. We all know it is complicated and that every country, without exception, is having to work it out as it goes along. In fact, I would suggest that your suggestion that “To try to change course midway, before modelling outcomes can be tested, keeps everyone in a permanent limbo” is more blank-and-white than anything I have suggested, since having made a particular binary choice – and such choices are unavoidable – you do not allow it to be reconsidered until a potentially long time has passed. A modelling outcome cannot be tested until you have amassed enough data.    Having made one particular decision – do we follow our experts or the WHO experts should not mean we are deaf to all other advice and experience elsewhere: we should be looking at the entire advice the whole time. That is complex and requires honest assessment and determination to do your best. It is much simpler to say “We have picked our experts, everything is now their responsibility” but that is both an abdication from responsibility on the one hand, and deceitful on the other, because as I said at the start of this thread, a lot of the decisions are inherently political and pretending those are not happening is misleading. This is not a party political point: it would be true for any party and for any government anywhere is the world that behaved that way.
When it comes to testing, of course we are seeking better tests that are easier to carry out, are reliable and can be produced in bulk. That is completely correct. But it overlooks that we are carrying out tests now, and that we were carrying out tests right at the start of this pandemic. So it is not the existance and reliability of a test that is a problem as such, it is the capacity and widespread use of the tests we already have that are a problem. And we know that Germany in particular has been able to produce such test material and implement a testing regime far in excess of what we are able to. There was an interesting section on Newsnight last evening comparing the UK and the Germany behaviours. We started off following almost the same route of test and trace. And we both moved from ‘confine’ to ‘delay’ at the same time. But at the point Germany continued with the test and trace regime alongside the concentration on delaying the spread, whereas we in the words of Prof Whitty as best I recall them would ‘concentrate our capacity on hospitals’.   That implicit recognition we were reaching our capacity to tests was, I suggest, why we stopped tracing: it was not a scientific decision that stopping tracing was a good idea: it was scientific advice in response to the question ‘if we are running out of the ability to test, what is the best approach?’   I may not be right, of course, but if so it is a misrepresentation to present this as a scientific decision to stop tracing. And, by the way, it is just as much a misrepresentation if it was Prof Whitty standing at a podium who says it as any minister.
Then PPE shortages: again, I think your suggesting we think of it as ‘The fault of the government or the fault of the NHS’ is far more black and white than anything I have suggested. Each has responsibilities: they do not reside with one or the other.

All of the above is not really political at all: it would apply just as much to any government and in broad terms does so to every government in every country at the moment.   But now come to something entirely political and long term: decades long, not the few months of this crisis. You note correctly that most of our drugs and the sources of PPE come from off shore. In that vein, others have said that the reason Germany can apparently get test materials more readily than we can is that the manufacturers are in Germany.

And the question arises why is that? In short, we allowed this to happen because our approach to free market thinking said if the PPE could be got cheaper from elsewhere we should not manufacture it in the UK. Ditto almost everything else where there is a UK shortage. It also said that ‘efficiency’ in the sense of nothing ever wasted was an important aspect. We should not have more capacity to manufacture ventilators than we need, because the ventilating-machine-maker takes up floor space, and needs maintenance, and occasional calibration or whatever: it is not maximising the profitability. The floor space should be used for something where we can make a profit. Similarly use ‘just in time’ and get rid of warehouses as much as we can in the name of ‘efficiency’.

The shortages we are experiencing here – and they could be the same on many other things like fuel, for example – are arising because in our economic model we undervalue the long term security of the country in search of maximising growth and profit. Probably the only sector were we don’t do this is military, but even that shows we recognise there is a limit to where we are prepared to outsource things we critically depend on.   Both left and right wing agree on that: the essential difference is where we draw the line. I would say that given the choice of maximising growth or being able to minimise deaths in a crisis like this my vote is, and always has been, life before profit.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 04:00 AM

if a graph shows a clear increase it can hardly be argued it is decreasing at any moment in time.

Au contraire

If the graph shows an increase in funding of 5% yet costs have increased by 10%, then the funding, in real terms, has decreased.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 05:05 AM

From the hoss's mouth (brought by guido of course.) In glorious technicolour so denial is impossible.
https://order-order.com/2020/04/17/watch-mcdonnell-labour-found-institutionally-antisemitic/#comments

Even Mcdonnell is saying the leaked labour report should be submitted to the EHRC (warts and all)
Perhaps Mr Farage should form an official Opposition party as the present crowd give every impression that crewing a five ring circus would present an insurmountable challenge, let alone provide a vibrant opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 05:24 AM

Troll alert.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 05:34 AM

I suggest he be ignored - he is obviously out to close this thead too by dirictly rejecting what the mod requested
Seems to be a scalp-gathering hobby of his
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 06:01 AM

Just a reminder...

”Mod rules:

No personal insults
No dragging up the same points again and again and again
Stay as polite as you can be...
Respect each other, even if your political opinions differ.
No racism, sexism or other isms“

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 06:02 AM

Yes, divert and distract did not take long to make an appearance did it. No obvious answer to mistrust in the government or the underfunding of vital services so out comes the flamebait. Whatever anyone in the Labour party, or any other party but the Tories for that matter, does or says, it will have no bearing on how the country is govererned for the next few years. When it comes to election time I expect the smears and dirty tricks to be wheeled out again but using them now is blatant smoke and mirrors.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 06:12 AM

No personal insults
No dragging up the same points again and again and again
Stay as polite as you can be...
Respect each other, even if your political opinions differ.
No racism, sexism or other isms“

Seems a few here think none of the above applies to them.
Pride cometh............

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 06:37 AM

If the graph shows an increase in funding of 5% yet costs have increased by 10%, then the funding, in real terms, has decreased.
A lot of "ifs" in rejection of the graph but zero facts to substantiate the if.
By way of contrast I could show a poll showing how Boris popularity has increased reently:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
Notice the difference I make a claim and offer proof
You attempt to disparage a claim by empty waffle.

You constantly belittle the government and collectively pat yourselves on the back when you feel you have scored a point. I submit a fully substantiated post outlining fault with the labour party and you try to dodge the issue by calling it trolling and an attempt to close the thread. This is a political thread and strangely enough talking about labour is political. The fact they are in a shambolic state may be a source of embassassment to you but I am afraid you will just have to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 08:00 AM

Here’s an opinion piece with which I completely agree. It’s one individual’s opinion, copied from Facebook, I haven’t linked to it or identified the originator because I have no wish to expose them to abuse...

”Is no one else absolutely furious that they’re being gaslit into believing the NHS is a charity that is funded by donations from working class people? That a 99 year old man dragging himself up and down a patch of grass is being celebrated? It is nothing to celebrate. It is not a great example of The Great British Blitz Spirit. That’s what the government and the press who prop them up want you to think so you don’t notice their catastrophic failings. It is a stain on this government and the way this country is being run. It is utterly shameful. Why are we not furious that a pregnant nurse died when she shouldn’t have been at work in the first place while Sicknote Johnson lords it up at his country manor? That care workers are being rewarded for their work with the honour of paying for a fucking badge?

We are being asked to do our bit and dig into our pockets to pay for a service that we already pay for. It is not a charity. You are being asked to pay for the shortcomings of this government. It’s not fucking Comic Relief. Maybe the nasty party should ask their billionaire mates to dig deep or even perhaps pay the taxes that they owe in the first place? The left always knew the last election was literally a matter of life or death and we are seeing it every day and it’s the worst thing to be proven right about. Those of you who voted this utterly disgraceful government into power should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

ETA: Those of you arguing on MY post that I shouldn’t be making it political, EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. Existing is a political act when you’re not a white, middle class, heterosexual, cisgendered man.”

I’ll bet ‘Seaman’ Staines or the Daily Heil don’t report on it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 08:14 AM

"No dragging up the same points again and again and again"

"Seems a few here think none of the above applies to them."

Seems like YOU think that the above stricture doesn't apply to YOU. Perhaps Barb'ry should have added "hypocrisy prohibited" to her list...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 08:22 AM

good point bwm. yes. we must never forget their record or that the purpose of the tories is to sell off and degrade public services and protect the interests of the wealthy. it must be a bit awkward for them to pretend to care about nhs and care workers but they are inadvertently aided by the charity efforts of good people with good intentions and by our regular clapping, i'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 08:29 AM

Well, John, I donated. Not happily, for all the reasons given in your post. In addition, you donate via a platform called Just Giving. They then distribute the money to all the NHS charities (way over a hundred of them) under its umbrella. Just Giving charges a platform fee in countries other than the UK. that's a five percent rakeoff straight away. In this country the default "donation" to Just Giving is ten percent, though you can cancel that as you donate. Naturally, the way to cancel it is shrouded in thick fog. Whatever else, they charge a "card fee" of 1.9% of your donation plus 20p. Just Giving is a dyed-in-the-wool US capitalist setup. If Tom racks up twenty million, they will rake in a million. They wanted to sound nice so they've donated £100,000 back to Tom. Aren't they generous? And if you sign up for Gift Aid, Just Giving takes five percent of that as well. After that, there's the different levels of efficiency achieved by all those NHS charities. I suppose the worst of them will suck up several tens of percent of the dough before any of it gets to the people the donors intended it for...

Political? Nah! :-(

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 08:57 AM

NHS
I go along with Baccie's blog to a point - to a degree, it applies to all charities - all things being equal, our countries are wealthy enough to fund a national health service
Unfortunately, they are not so what do you do till they are ?
It's been a lifetime dilemma with me
I used to refuse to give to national charities on principle - now I am selective about who and why I do
I've never stopped arguing for a change in our rotten society along with this though
I do think some charities should be prevented being self-interest profitable businesses
MY HEART GOES OUT TO THIS FELLER THOUGH
They should strip all the awards given to tossers who have been awarded them for simply becoming successful, melt them down and give them to what he's walking for
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 09:11 AM

"I submit a fully substantiated post outlining fault with the labour party"

No Iains, you submitted a 150 article from an extreme right-wing blogger with a known criminal past that related to a 850 PAGE document. The article had no content or context.

You do not state what is said in that document, in fact you make no reference to the contents of the article in any way, shape or form.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 10:13 AM

What has Johnson's popularity or otherwise to do with NHS underfunding? The NHS has been stripped of the right level of funding for 10 years. Johnson has only presided over that for a few months. More smoke and mirrors but, if required, I am happy to provide statistics on the level of underfunding since the Tories took charge. Plenty to see on FullFact.org but I warn you, it isn't good.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 10:23 AM

Yea, and Tom Moore. He raises £15 million pounds for NHS charities (I donated) while the Duke of Westminster, the world's richest man under 30, donated £10m from his vast fortune. The widow's mite springs to mind yet I suspect the gutter press will be all over Hugh Grosvener.

Captain Tom is from Keighley BTW. They make 'em tough up here :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 10:29 AM

You can lead a horse to water..............
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-leaks-report-antisemitism-racism-diane-abbott-butler-a9468521.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/15/labour-must-turn-its-back-on-factionalism-says-keir-starmer


https://www.marxist.com/labour-leaked-report-drain-the-cesspit.htm
and

It appears Labour is so embarrassed by the leaked 850 page document it has been deleted from the internet.
Good job I kept a copy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: peteglasgow
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 10:47 AM

a few years ago there was a story about 50/60 guys owning as much as half the world - enough to fit on one bus. (do stop if i said this before) now - if they all decided they wanted to pay to sort out those of the worlds problems that can be sorted by money they could - education, schools, polution, health....etc etc. they could do that and keep, say, half a billion each. they would be heroes - everyone would acknowledge how they had transformed the planet for the better. if you were on that bus you would, wouldn't you? why not?

all credit to anyone doing what they can for charity - i do my bit but it is generally sporadic and fairly grudging or dependant on my whim and how i'm feeling that day. . i don't know what to do really as for the vast majority of my life we havn't had so many beggars around - or food banks. these are now normalised - part of our society's safety net. but it wasn't always that way - and needn't be now.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 11:22 AM

According to this article the UK is going to start contract tracing again.

As part of this, it seems to be assuming a phone app will be a significant contribution. I have grave doubts it will. There has been an assessment I read that 80% of people need to use it to help and while the exact number may be open to debate, it seems self evident that unless the vast majority of people are using it, a substantial fraction of the tracing will not be possible, which puts us all at risk. So getting enough people to download it and run it is going to be critical. That seems to me a real problem. But it is exacerbated by reports over the last few days of a dispute between Apple and Google, because they want to limit the data collected to reduce the risk of state monitoring in other ways as far as possible: remember their concerns are not just the UK, but also the US, where there may be constitutional problems, and also nation states where individual freedom is not very highly prized by the authorities. In addition, according to reports the UK design of the app meant it had to be the only application running at the time, which is not only very limiting, but is also error prone. If people have to switch it on and off as they go out, for example, there will be a substantial fraction of people who forget.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 11:25 AM

Mrs Steve wanted to give Tom something. I dislike charity giving and wish we lived in a world where it wasn't needed. We even argued about it, even more when I delved into Just Giving. There are charities whose bosses earn more than head teachers. Just Giving justifies itself by saying that it provides a sound and stable platform for charitable giving (though it crashed yesterday). It is liked by charities, though it charges a fee for them to use its platform, apart from the rakeoff from every donation made as I said before. Some of this is fair but a lot of it doesn't seem to be to me. Just Giving has its overheads, like any business. But so far it's made a net haul of around £800,000 from donations to Tom. And for doing what, you have to ask yourself. Nice little earner for them, is Tom...

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 11:26 AM

I suppose distraction tactics are all part of politics now. Shame really and it is usually done in a far more subtle way. Still, at least we know what the right on here have to say about NHS underfunding and Boris being a stranger to the truth don't we. Answers on a postage stamp please. I think you can fit Labour, Jeremy Corbyn and antisemitism if you write very small :-)

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 11:39 AM

Interesting, DMcG. There are also people like me who have the cheapest phone available. Mine is currently a Motorola 5G. Works fine but is very limited in what it can run. I doubt very much if it has enough memory to run this app. I guess the app will also use data. So, it will probably run OK it you can afford a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone and pay for the data it uses. If course there are those who, due to lack of funds or invpclination, do not run a smart phone at all

I doubt very much if the powers that be have even contemplated that there may be people who just don't have access to the latest technology. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 11:57 AM

I agree, Dave. It is often the case that those interested in the technical aspects of a job give little thought about the effectiveness in practice. Even more so if they are contractors, as they are rightly more concerned with doing what was asked, rather than any wider implications. In this case I have the impression it is thought of as technical matter, but it is at least as much a 'human factors' issue. And as you say, what people's contracts allow in the way of data usage is something else to be taken into account when thinking about whether it will work in practice. I got the impression that it would be a heavy user of data, but the article I read discussing the app were not very clear what was being required.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Iains
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 12:27 PM

There is also a proposal(hopefully merely a rumour) that compulsion may be needed in order a tracking app may work. Also that those that do not have a phone capable of using the app may be given a suitable tracking device. Interesting concept that compulsion may be used to overide existing freedoms. Having worn a satellite tracker in dodgy spots I can appreciate there are two distinct sides to the coin. I think the idea would require a lot of selling otherwise a large hammer might have a meeting with a phone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 02:45 PM

Re Romanian fruit pickers being flown into England, why not our own uni students, as I did years ago in Australia? One of my poems, from WalkaboutsVerse, on a chap I met whilst picking unions at Echuca on Australia's Murray River, "The Picker"

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 02:50 PM

Are you proposing that students be forced to do fruit picking, WAV? I think you may find that the problem is no one else wants to do it!

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 03:01 PM

Fruit-picking in the UK seems to have been pushed into history my mechanisation - it was once Traveller occupation -no more, reportedly
The British Government can't possible revival an old custom by transporting the unemployed to Australia - or can it
You never know with that mob
From predictions filtering down on the economic consequences of this crisis, Britain is seriously going to have to go through the whole Brexit fiasco again even to get to where it is
Trump is set fair to send the US onto the rocks an he's going to be in no position to take on lame duck economies - he's more likely to strike a deal with China
Maybe the pandemic really should be used as a 'Fire of London and burn ou the rats all over again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 04:00 PM

Hey Jim, re your claim that fruit picking was a "traveller occupation - no more"

I worked on a farm as a "chef" and picking fruit through the late spring and summer of 1972. I cannot recall one traveller on that site or on any of the others in Friday Bridge, Wisbeck.

Subject: RE: BS: UK Politics. Moderated thread
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Apr 20 - 04:09 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014qxbg