Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Britain does refuse to accept how terrorists really work. Otherwise the massive amount of hate towards Islam would not exist.

I'd hardly call what's reported as 'massive'. Hate crimes in general have doubled after each attack, with the Met identifying around a five-fold increase in anti-Muslim motivated hate crime, dropping back to normal in just over a week.

Normal is four a day. In London. For comparison, there's 22 thefts of mobile phones a day in London.

It's certainly a stupid amount of hate towards Islam, but massive? Nah.

 

[PeterJB]

Why not both? Corbyn wants to put £8bn into universities, which is opt-in, selective education for grown-ups, but is also in favour of increasing state school funding.

What's so wrong with opt-in, selective education for children that means Corbyn wants no more of it than already exists? Why shouldn't smart children get the chance to thrive in a selective environment? And why does it do anything to divide working and middle-class children? Are you suggesting that working class children are too stupid to get into a selective school?

I think that securing adequate funding for state schools should be done before grammar schools. And I'm saying that it creates division in that your fate largely gets settled at the mere age of 11, which cognitive development does not end at; graduating from a grammar school gives you far more of a shoe-in into high-end jobs than at a comprehensive.

Remember, being a student is a career choice. It's one you make instead of working (although many make it as well as working part-time), but it's your choice. It's not like the costs of doing it are hidden from you and it all comes as a big shock once you show up to your first lecture - you know it's going to cost you, and you know how much. I'm still baffled why you think anyone else needs to pay for your choice to pursue a degree and career you want.

Because it's extortionately expensive. You can't say that we're not allowed to complain about the prices because it's our choice, when the other option is being shut out of the option of higher education and all the perks that brings because we're not rich enough.

It's basic equality. If you say that government should treat all people as equal but create a graded tax code to take more of a proportion of salary along with more of an actual monetary value from wealthier people, guess who is the least equally treated.

But that's the problem with liberal and socialist values when paired together. You want to treat everyone equally so badly, that no-one can ever have any more money than anyone else, regardless of how difficult, skillful or stressful their job is. The end point is government producing all goods and services as it is needed, with zero private ownership.


Tax is a punishment. We tax cigarettes to punish smokers*. We tax alcohol to punish drinkers*. We tax fuel to punish car drivers*. We punish them because they are using up resources, and with the tax they pay we replenish the resources. The health service is paid to look after the effects of smoking and drinking. The roads are rebuilt to look after the effects of wear and tear.

So why does anyone want to punish people for working - and punish them more for working harder, more vital or more skillful jobs? What resources are they using up? What harm are they doing by working? Income tax is moronic.
And I'm discussing things that the Conservatives did under Cameron, not May. The fact is that the Conservatives did more to help the poor-but-employed in their first 12 months than the Labour party - for whom Corbyn was an MP - in 13 years.

All the things you've said Corbyn would do with his awareness of the life of normal people are absolutely nothing compared to that one act. It wouldn't take much to acknowledge this.

*Each of these taxes is on a choice, and per use. However, a 20-a-day smoker on £17k a year will pay a larger proportion of their income in cigarette tax than a 20-a-day smoker on £170k a year. Would you support lower rate per-use taxation on products according to income too? Show your payslip at the garage to get cheaper fuel?

Is the punishment supposed to be that the money that is taken from you is put into funding public services? Seems like we get off pretty lightly with that, and that everyone makes a contribution to services that can be used by anyone. I personally would never advocate having an income tax rate of over 50%, and when the time comes that income tax adjustments are needed to fund shortcomings, increasing taxes on the lowest earners who will be most affected is not the way to go around it. I would advocate a more fluid shall we say system of taxation, one with more brackets, i.e. a 30% tax bracket put in somewhere. 80% of 45,000 is considerably larger than 80% of 11,501, and that 20% covers the main bulk of the working population. I do think there is excessive amount of taxing going, you can basically still be taxed when you're dead, but if we want public services, which I believe most of the population does, the money needs to come from somewhere.

I fail to see how Corbyn being a backbench MP is the same as someone leading a party, and having the primary say in decision making. However it would appear that Corbyn has consistently voted against bills which involve raising the minimum tax threshold, but that also involve reducing corporation tax, increasing VAT, and lowering the high tax bracket thresholds. So you have a point, but that alone does not solve all the problems working-class people are facing under Conservative leadership.

 

[Famine]

I think that securing adequate funding for state schools should be done before grammar schools.

That's fine, but you're acting like they're mutually exclusive - and there's the contradiction that you want opt-in selective education for grown-ups to be fully funded too.

And I'm saying that it creates division in that your fate largely gets settled at the mere age of 11, which cognitive development does not end at

Does it get settled for wealthy kids over poorer kids, or does it get settled for smarter kids over less smart kids regardless of background?

The argument that grammar schools cause a divide between working and middle class is a non-starter. It causes a divide whereby kids with ability are given a better chance to nurture that ability, over the one-size-fits-all state system.

graduating from a grammar school gives you far more of a shoe-in into high-end jobs than at a comprehensive.

Okay. So?

Because it's extortionately expensive.

So what? So is Sky Television, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class or the Hilton. It's your choice to buy the education you want for the career you want, so you pay for it!

As for 'extortionate'... You're looking at a £35k penalty in the first three years of your working life (call it £12k/year) in order to earn an average of 35% more over the remainder of your working life. On an average (median) full-time salary, that's £9k a year, so you'll be level-pegging with the people who didn't go to university by the time you're 25. Assuming a lower starting salary with annual increments, it might take until you're in your early 30s.

Extortionate would be if it was so painfully expensive that you'd never stand a chance of getting it back and the value of doing it would be between very little and considerably negative. The question there would be why anyone sane would choose that option. Perhaps you just mean 'it's expensive'.

You can't say that we're not allowed to complain about the prices because it's our choice

I absolutely can.

when the other option is being shut out of the option of higher education and all the perks that brings because we're not rich enough.

Again, you're suggesting that you'd have to pay for your university up front with a lump sum or you're not getting in. It didn't work that way before tuition fees and it doesn't work that way now. The system right now is a loan at unbelievably generous rates - I couldn't get a £35k bank loan for what the SLC charge and I have a credit score of Give This Man Free Money.

20 million+ of the UK's workforce gets by without a basic degree, much less a postgraduate one. You're asking them to pay for choosing to work instead of paying for more education so that you don't have to pay for more education!

Is the punishment supposed to be that the money that is taken from you is put into funding public services?

Yeah, that's literally the point of tax. It pays for public services and also to pay the people in charge of the public services.

Seems like we get off pretty lightly with that

That... doesn't make sense.

and that everyone makes a contribution to services that can be used by anyone.

Hold up there. Everyone makes a contribution to services that can be used by anyone? Surely you mean everyone makes a contribution to services that anyone may need. There's a massive gulf there - people need things like disability benefit, council houses, hospitals, police, firemen* and so on, as they make the difference between being alive and being dead. But public funded buses, trains, universities, which people use when they want to?

I personally would never advocate having an income tax rate of over 50%, and when the time comes that income tax adjustments are needed to fund shortcomings, increasing taxes on the lowest earners who will be most affected is not the way to go around it. I would advocate a more fluid shall we say system of taxation, one with more brackets, i.e. a 30% tax bracket put in somewhere. 80% of 45,000 is considerably larger than 80% of 11,501, and that 20% covers the main bulk of the working population. I do think there is excessive amount of taxing going, you can basically still be taxed when you're dead, but if we want public services, which I believe most of the population does, the money needs to come from somewhere.

But income tax is fundamentally moronic, as it's fundamentally central government treating people differently. It's also a punishment for working. Isn't work punishment enough for most people, without having a third of their time taken up working for the exchequer?

I fail to see how Corbyn being a backbench MP is the same as someone leading a party, and having the primary say in decision making. However it would appear that Corbyn has consistently voted against bills which involve raising the minimum tax threshold, but that also involve reducing corporation tax, increasing VAT, and lowering the high tax bracket thresholds. So you have a point, but that alone does not solve all the problems working-class people are facing under Conservative leadership.

But it does highlight the fact that the Conservatives did, immediately on entering government, specifically improve the lives of the lowest wage-earners in the country - and that should automatically cause you to question if the Conservatives really are just the party of the rich, or if their policies that you perceive as benefiting the rich have broader economic benefits to the poor also...

 

[Tired Tyres]

I think that securing adequate funding for state schools should be done before grammar schools. And I'm saying that it creates division in that your fate largely gets settled at the mere age of 11, which cognitive development does not end at; graduating from a grammar school gives you far more of a shoe-in into high-end jobs than at a comprehensive.

So you don't get a high-end job with your degree? I was never giving the opportunity to take the 11+. That's a bit of a shame as is the very definition of merit and I was denied it. Why should it get 2nd class treatment when you are banging on about not being required to pay for your none compulsory further education? I'm firmly of the view that you should pay for that. I pay for your compulsory education. I shouldn't be required to pay for your optional further education.

By the way - I'm working class. Explain how the Conservatives are giving me a problem? I'm not detecting one.

But it does highlight the fact that the Conservatives did, immediately on entering government, specifically improve the lives of the lowest wage-earners in the country - and that should automatically cause you to question if the Conservatives really are just the party of the rich, or if their policies that you perceive as benefiting the rich have broader economic benefits to the poor also...

The tax free allowance increase was a Lib Dem contribution wasn't it?

 

[Famine]

The tax free allowance increase was a Lib Dem contribution wasn't it?

No no, they were responsible for all the bad things of the coalition

 

[Tired Tyres]

No no, they were responsible for all the bad things of the coalition

Oh right. Sorry for going off message there. That reminds me. I voted Lib Dem and joined the rest of the 1.5% of voters in my constituency, (down 1.4% on the last election), that wasted our votes according to someone I know. No. I said. There is only one wasted vote. The one that is not cast at all. That is the number one reason the working class don't get any love from the government. Now that Corbyn has "activated" the youth vote ('cos he promised them a free lunch (further education) and the working class have voted again, after the EU thing - how is the government supposed to rob Peter to pay off Paul?

 

[Famine]

Now that Corbyn has "activated" the youth vote

Oddly, the most popular age group for Labour was 35-44, with 20% of Labour's total votes coming from this group.

So I guess they got young people out to vote, but the idiots voted the wrong way.

 

[PeterJB]

Interesting, I don't recall ever saying that I personally want tuition fees abolished, but I would certainly like them reduced to at least to pre-2012-2013 levels. But any call to abolish tuition fees outright is going to get students' ears twitching, and certainly prospective low-income students (or their parents).

I get that grammar schools are at least a leg-up on private schools as you don't have to directly buy your way in, but as it stands the majority of grammar school students do not come from low-income backgrounds, there are more low-income pupils in the city of Bradford than there are low-income grammar school students across the entire country. Not only can failing an 11+ exam destroys a student's confidence, but plays on the assumption that our cognitive development is reached aged 11, determining whether you can spend your adolescence at an elite, top-tier school, in turn giving you easier access to better universities, or one that is essentially second best because the students there weren't good enough for the grammar school. If the PM wants to increase funding and educational standards, then maybe she should start with the schools that at least everyone is guaranteed a place in.

 

[Famine]

there are more low-income pupils in the city of Bradford than there are low-income grammar school students across the entire country.

Probably because there's only 160 grammar schools and the only counties with a grammar school system are Kent and Lincolnshire. Most kids don't even get the chance to try to attend one.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

British politics is a disaster at the moment. I feel the decision I have to make tomorrow is to pick the least worst party to govern out country. What a shambles!

Welcome to America

 

[UKMikey]

The snap election's all Europe's fault apparently:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...juncker-brexit-general-election-a7784641.html

[EDIT] Meanwhile Donald Trump's planned visit to the UK has been put on hold...

... or has it?

 

[Touring Mars]

 

[UKMikey]

What is Jeremy Corbyn doing there (in the background forty seconds in)?

 

[Johnnypenso]

May: The snap election's all Europe's fault apparently:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...juncker-brexit-general-election-a7784641.html

[EDIT] Meanwhile Donald Trump's planned visit to the UK has been put on hold...

... or has it?

I read the article and I don't see anywhere where May is quoted as saying the election is "all Europe's fault", or anything close to that. In fact, I don't see any quotes from May at all, just rumour, supposition and unnamed sources. Perhaps you linked to the wrong source? Is The Independent like the National Enquirer of Britain?

 

[UKMikey]

I read the article and I don't see anywhere where May is quoted as saying the election is "all Europe's fault", or anything close to that. In fact, I don't see any quotes from May at all, just rumour, supposition and unnamed sources. Perhaps you linked to the wrong source? Is The Independent like the National Enquirer of Britain?

Perhaps you read a different headline to me or are unfamiliar with the ironic use of the word "apparently"? Maybe I should have used "allegedly". Sorry you read it as being a verbatim quote from May though. I'll remove her name from the original post.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Perhaps you read a different headline to me or are unfamiliar with the ironic use of the word "apparently"? Maybe I should have used "allegedly".

Ironic use of "the" word? What word? When you begin a response with "May:" and then include nothing from May, I don't see irony, I see posting falsehoods.

 

[UKMikey]

Ironic use of "the" word? What word? When you begin a response with "May:" and then include nothing from May, I don't see irony, I see posting falsehoods.

The word "apparently" in quotes. It was what the article implied and your objection sounds pedantic and stuffy to me.

Good to know our PM's honour still has some defenders though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The word in quotes. It was what the article implied and your objection sounds pedantic and stuffy to me.

Good to know our PM's honour still has some defenders though.

The article didn't imply anything of the sort, that's your interpretation of what it says. At least take ownership of your own thoughts. I see you amended your original post and now it doesn't include "May:" though.

Also, please show where I am defending anything May has said or done. Kind of hard to do when the link you used has no source material from May at all. I'd really like to see an explanation for that one.

 

[UKMikey]

The article didn't imply anything of the sort, that's your interpretation of what it says. At least take ownership of your own thoughts. I see you amended your original post and now it doesn't include "May:" though. Also, please show where I am defending anything May has said or done.

It didn't imply May called the election because Juncker told her to?

I removed May because that's what I said I'd do in the previous post.

Per your edit:

Also, please show where I am defending anything May has said or done. Kind of hard to do when the link you used has no source material from May at all. I'd really like to see an explanation for that one.

You appear to be defending her honour from being impugned by the scurrilous article.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It didn't imply May called the election because Juncker told her to?

I removed May because that's what I said I'd do in the previous post.

Per your edit:

You appear to be defending her honour from being impugned by the scurrilous article.

Nope. As I said, the article contains no source material from May so there's nothing to defend. I'm more concerned about how you appeared to attribute your own inference directly to a person that isn't actually quoted in the article. The article could have been about Winston Churchill and my response would have been the same. Don't let your personal biases for or against May prevent you from seeing the broader principle at work.

I have no use for "articles" like that. There are no quotes from the people involved. As such it's National Enquirer or TMZ level stuff to me. Anyone can say anything they want so long as you don't have to reveal a source. I believe the Daily Mail is one of the papers over the pond that is known for publishing that kind of material.

 

[UKMikey]

Nope. As I said, the article contains no source material from May so there's nothing to defend. I'm more concerned about how you appeared to attribute your own inference directly to a person that isn't actually quoted in the article. The article could have been about Winston Churchill and my response would have been the same. Don't let your personal biases for or against May prevent you from seeing the broader principle at work.

I have no use for "articles" like that. There are no quotes from the people involved. As such it's National Enquirer or TMZ level stuff to me. Anyone can say anything they want so long as you don't have to reveal a source. I believe the Daily Mail is one of the papers over the pond that is known for publishing that kind of material.

OK, next time I'll just post the link as my on-the-fly summarisation of the article was wrong.

Then you can criticise the article to your heart's content.

 

[Johnnypenso]

OK, next time I'll just post the link as my on-the-fly summarisation of the article was wrong.

Then you can criticise the article to your heart's content.

You're free to do as you wish and that might work in your favour. Spamming links isn't something I'm fond of. I don't read links unless the person posting them either includes a brief summary on the material in question and/or adds their own thoughts on the matter. Common courtesy IMO.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

DUP now backed by Conservative Party - Secretary of State for NI is no longer independent.
Goodbye, Good Friday Agreement.

Whilst this is a fair point a lot of Republicans (particularly Sinn Fein) have painted themselves into a bit of a corner here, because they already consider the NI Secretary as not being independent - calling for him to be tossed in favour of someone not-Westminster/not-Tory before a talks process is fairly routine.

For them to argue that he is no longer independent now, that would mean they would've had to accept he was independent before.......which would be a nice little rewriting of history. So putting the GFA in jeopardy is probably a stretch, for now at least.

@Lizard riots in the streets is probably nonsense. Ironically the last time we had significant rioting was when loyalists didn't get their way (over flags of all things).

That'll be largely because they're almost all Conservatives.

Whilst most UKIP members were ex-Tories it looks like not all UKIP voters were - the basic change in party vote shares (Con +5.4, Lab +9.5, UKIP -10.8) don't necessarily tell the full story, but it suggests that a chunk of UKIP's base actually went to Labour.

Presumably this means those people will stop being the hideous, stupid racists who were ruining everything for "normal people" last year, and will revert back to the decent, hardworking "normal people" that the Labour party have always stood up for...........

 

[UKMikey]

You're free to do as you wish and that might work in your favour. Spamming links isn't something I'm fond of. I don't read links unless the person posting them either includes a brief summary on the material in question and/or adds their own thoughts on the matter. Common courtesy IMO.

I had thought so too until today.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nope. As I said, the article contains no source material from May so there's nothing to defend.

It doesn't need it, law requires that there are primary sources who were at the summits alongside Juncker and May. In this case the Guardian/Observer doesn't wish to name the diplomats, or they don't wish to be named.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/election-nicky-morgan-theresa-hard-brexit

 

[Johnnypenso]

It doesn't need it, law requires that there are primary sources who were at the summits alongside Juncker and May. In this case the Guardian/Observer doesn't wish to name the diplomats, or they don't wish to be named.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/10/election-nicky-morgan-theresa-hard-brexit

I didn't say anything about the legalities of it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't say anything about the legalities of it.

True, but your comment went to the validity of the Guardian's repetition of the claim. You seemed to state that without May as a primary, on-record source there was no validity in reproducing the claim, but that is not the case.

 

[Johnnypenso]

True, but your comment went to the validity of the Guardian's repetition of the claim. You seemed to state that without May as a primary, on-record source there was no validity in reproducing the claim, but that is not the case.

The validity of their claim is based on unnamed sources that no one else can confirm or deny. Around the watercooler we call this gossip until it's independently verified by a source willing to step forward.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The validity of their claim is based on unnamed sources that no one else can confirm or deny. Around the watercooler we call this gossip until it's independently verified by a source willing to step forward.

They're primarily a printed paper from the UK, not a web entity. If challenged to provide their sources they'd have to (likely in camera) - the Guardian isn't usually stupid enough to publish stories from the parliament without feeling confident in their sources.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Diane Abbott says she has type 2 diabetes, and this is the reason for her car crash interviews, and pulling out of the election campaign altogether.

Fair enough I suppose, but I'm now really curious about this story that popped up during the campaign; an email prankster claimed to have an exchange with Diane, posing as Labour's spin doctor Seumas Milne, after she had pulled out of a Woman's Hour interview.



Something like that is easily faked so I didn't think much of it at the time - but now it looks like quite the concidence to have made up the line "and diabetes, in itself, wouldn't stop me doing Woman's Hour"..............