Excuse my bad language on a Sunday morning but this whole thing is a fucking shambles. They've managed to trick people into fucking the country and now they're doing everything they possibly can to take us down the worst possible route just so they can make their tax haven utopia they've wanted ever since Thatcher went eurosceptic. I fucking hate our government so much. I voted for Labour, but I hate that they seem hellbent on doing a hard brexit also which is what NOBODY VOTED FOR FFS.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Excuse my bad language on a Sunday morning but this whole thing is a fucking shambles. They've managed to trick people into fucking the country and now they're doing everything they possibly can to take us down the worst possible route just so they can make their tax haven utopia they've wanted ever since Thatcher went eurosceptic. I fucking hate our government so much. I voted for Labour, but I hate that they seem hellbent on doing a hard brexit also which is what NOBODY VOTED FOR FFS.
Can't find someone better in the party.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
This would be a disaster and means EU and UK relations would be tarnished for decades.
In terms of image, the UK would feel the brunt of it. The EU already looks like the good guy in this situation.
Dirtyshubb
Member
FFS...
It's like we are dealing with ignorant children here. They come up with these ideas of how to get what they want all while ignoring the fact their ideas are shit and will cause the opposite of what we apparently want.
Also, how can the Tories think this is a good idea? It shows how much division there must be in The party as this is as hard brexit style as you could get.
It feels almost intentional at this point, how anyone other than someone who wants to watch everything burn could think these actions are good I don't know.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's not in their interests to replace her. Osborne just hates her for sacking him.
TiredofWinning
Member
There's really no one to replace May?
Not even someone bland like Phillip Hammond?
Not even someone bland like Phillip Hammond?
Its the only way May can stay in office.
Only question is if she really going to fuck over the country to stay in power and get kicked out after brexit.
Literally nobody else wants the job right now, it's poison.
Hammond would be opposed by the hardcore Brexiteer faction. Boris or Davis would be opposed by the more moderates. So you'd have a proper fight, which no one would want right now.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's not about who the leader is, it's about the chances of it forcing another election.
The thing is though, Brexit is going to screw the UK when they go hard Brexit, if you add that hit to the economy along with the Brexit bill. That's some one two knock out that will have us on our arse for decades. Maybe they know we doomed either way so why pay extra.
Perhaps it's some genius last minute move to stop Brexit! Just look insane.
Perhaps it's some genius last minute move to stop Brexit! Just look insane.
TiredofWinning
Member
True believer backbenchers would surely vote for no confidence then. Even if they get deselected for their seat.
Also this. If you get rid of May after Brexit, the new leader will have three years to rebuild before having to face a new election. That's quite a decent prospect. You can blame May for any unpopular but necessary compromises, maybe you'll have a new trade deal in place with the US, along with a CANZUK deal, and you'll be fighting against a 73 year old Corbyn.
At this point i expect a new PM would trigger war in the tory party.
New PM is either too soft on brexit or too hard on brexit.
With that small majority they have it would almost certainly trigger new elections.
TiredofWinning
Member
I don't think Corbyn's age matters anymore. Whoever succeeds him is going to be like him ideologically, the PLP has been put in their place. Corbyn's fundamentally changed the party.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The Tories right now are buoyed by the concept that they still have an exceptionally competitive vote share with May as leader.
So if they boot May at around the time of the Tory conference, make as much trouble as possible in the Brexit negotiations (and make Corbyn's appeasement stance look bad to his working class voters) and then call another election next May or June, I think they could win a good majority. Especially if they borrow some populism (i.e. throw money at things).
It is all based on if Corbyn can keep the momentum going until next year. What he has to be wary of is the Tories changing the rules next time and doing a good campaign.
So if they boot May at around the time of the Tory conference, make as much trouble as possible in the Brexit negotiations (and make Corbyn's appeasement stance look bad to his working class voters) and then call another election next May or June, I think they could win a good majority. Especially if they borrow some populism (i.e. throw money at things).
It is all based on if Corbyn can keep the momentum going until next year. What he has to be wary of is the Tories changing the rules next time and doing a good campaign.
My mind is full of fuck after reading this. We truly live in Idiocracy.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, steady on. It was an anonymous figure who no longer works there that said it.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
I think it's only to seem strong.
From Yougov, Labours support among the under 30s is exceptionally high so anywhere Corbyn goes with young people he'll get a warm reception.
In terms of voting records, Yougov doesn't have that in easily available but it was reported that many people who previously didn't vote in a general election did vote for Labour this time (mainly because of Corbyn).
Yeah, I would take a credibility haircut on it even being a thing.
Even if it were true, now that it's leaked the possibility of attempting this pathetic stunt is much lower.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
Well that's not quite true.
I was conned into voting LD because I thought it was the best chance at retaking Portsmouth South from the Conservatives. Labour have never held this seat, not once and every GE came a distant third.
They took it this time with a majority win. So voting Labour is never a bad idea when the wins is in your sails.
I don't entirely agree. There are undeniably options for Brexit that are far less extreme than what either Labour or the Conservatives are suggesting. If we were to take a deal similar to the one Norway has, for example, it would certainly be a 'Soft' Brexit. The only reason people don't consider it an option is because most people recognise it's less appealing than simply remaining in the European Union, and yet it is still preferable to what Labour and the Conservatives offer.
The reality is that there are still no good options. As soon as that referendum was called, and certainly once it was won by Leave, we were going to go through Hell regardless of whether we end up leaving hard, soft, or not at all. We're either going to go through with something extremely stupid, or take up a compromise position that pleases no-one and is undeniably worse than where we started, or renege on something that was voted for by a small but clear majority.
If the Survation polling is correct then there may well be a political opening to move back from Brexit. Imagine if we start seeing polls every few days that show Remain is ahead by those kind of margins. If the 52% has become 46%. If the block for Hard Brexit really is under a third. Then what? We surely can't have the two major parties pushing for something the public doesn't actually want. Yet I see no reason to believe Labour are prepared to do that primarily because their leader has always been anti-EU. I can't help but feel a lot of people are going to be deeply shocked when they realise he's not pushing for Brexit just for show.
Audioboxer
Member
4 pages so far? Community kills 
WhateverItTakes
Banned
4 pages so far? Community kills
You not being on 100ppp shocks and appals me.
Audioboxer
Member
Then it goes to 2 pages :O
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Took me a while to find this thread too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...s-month-july-2017_uk_5958b74de4b02734df32e23e
Trump may make a surprise visit to the UK when he goes to France in the next couple of weeks.
A big change from a state visit to sneaking in to the country quietly to avoid any protests
Trump may make a surprise visit to the UK when he goes to France in the next couple of weeks.
A big change from a state visit to sneaking in to the country quietly to avoid any protests
http://news.sky.com/story/scrapping-tuition-fees-would-be-stupid-sir-vince-cable-10934161
Liberal Democrats apparently haven't had enough of being outside in the cold yet.
I do tend to feel that the Labour policy of scrapping tuition fees was a little questionable given how abruptly it was to be implemented and given that it wasn't retroactive such that there would still be tons of people paying off both the old and new style loans... but on the other hand this is one of the two big issues financially hammering the young in a way that the old never were (the other bigger issue is housing). I don't entirely understand how Vince can sit there and bleat concerns about the inequity between the "40% that do go" and the "60% than don't" without considering the inequity between the young who go now compared to those that are older who went for much less or for free.
Liberal Democrats apparently haven't had enough of being outside in the cold yet.
I do tend to feel that the Labour policy of scrapping tuition fees was a little questionable given how abruptly it was to be implemented and given that it wasn't retroactive such that there would still be tons of people paying off both the old and new style loans... but on the other hand this is one of the two big issues financially hammering the young in a way that the old never were (the other bigger issue is housing). I don't entirely understand how Vince can sit there and bleat concerns about the inequity between the "40% that do go" and the "60% than don't" without considering the inequity between the young who go now compared to those that are older who went for much less or for free.
Theonik
Member
The problem with most of these realities is they do involve leaving the EU in all but name. Norway's deal for example only really gives them concessions on fish and they lose democratic representation in the EU which for British voters was a huge issue with the status quo. We accept hard brexit or no Brexit but these are the only real options, all soft brexits are permutation of no brexit in truth. If people change their mind then perhaps we can right our course but as things done we need to at least try and implement what people have asked for or risk greater consequences.
I don't think there is a single person in the country that would accept:
"You voted to leave but think you are a moron so we are staying but those things you hated are now worse just to spite your stupidity" even if one admitted that might be fair. Many remainers wer in fact Euroskeptic for example but felt there was more chance at reform in the union than out I don't think these outcomes satisfy anything but a fringe of remainers.
Dirtyshubb
Member
At this point I just think fuck the Lib Dems, I will forever think of this when I hear about centrists.
He's right, scrapping tuition fees is a dumb idea which won't help anyone. The way the loans system is set up means that it won't actually help people get into Uni. The problem with uni for low income people is living costs. The maintenance loans just don't cover enough. I know people who don't even get their rent covered.
Labour's policy to scrap tuition fees was basically a bribe to students.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I've spoken a lot about tuition fees before, including how the current set up is fairly decent in terms of being good value for students from low-income households and how actually the current system strongly penalises people from the middle class for the living costs reasons you have identified. So I am not entirely anti-tuition fees.(Although I do think, and know from working in HE and speaking with thousands of prospective students and their parents, the overall spectre of the total debt dissuades many regardless of the small print)
However, providing policies that benefit certain segments of voters is exactly what a manifesto is. Raising the minimum tax threshold is a bribe to low-income voters. Cutting taxes on small businesses is a bribe to small business owners. etc. etc. It is a meaningless concept.
Coriolanus
Banned
Any policy that economically benefits a group can be described as basically a bribe to that group. If the group is particularly large you can even add that scary "populist" tag to it too.
Wots that, you wanna increase benefits to the poor? that's a nonsense populist measure that's basically a bribe to the poor. Oh you want tax cuts to the rich? That's just a bribe to that sector.
Given that a politician will (usually) get the job by promissing to give voters what they want, we can thus come to the conclusion that elections are the enshrinement of bribery.
-
also god damn you peace warman, 1 minute ffs
You say it 'won't help anyone' but it will make a very significant difference to the future finances of graduates and all that then entails. People in the right unlucky circumstances are going to pay back absolute fortunes, draining them of money when they desperately need it to compete in the housing market and to provide financial stability and security for their families. Labour's policy wouldn't affect me as I left university some time ago, but I'm paying thousands of pounds a year to the SLC at the very time I'm trying to put together a deposit.
Scrapping student loans isn't a particularly progressive move on an intragenerational level but it is a massively progressive move on an intergenerational level. Even on the intragenerational level it's worth remembering that the current system can be extremely regressive in the right circumstances. Really rich parents will pay the loan off straight away. Really high earners will pay the loan off ASAP. High earners will pay it off relatively quickly and pay a lot. But someone who doesn't do well until they're older could end up paying an absolute fortune, £100,000, or even more. The interest rate on these loans is currently over 6% - that's madness. Aside from everything else we are signing up a generation of young people to gigantic, bizarrely complicated and unpredictable half loan half graduate tax.
The burden from the student loan system does fall on middle and high earners rather than low earners and that is a significant positive, but that fact doesn't really make up for how damaging this is to the generation as a whole. It's also worth remembering, of course, that Labour were pledging to reinstate maintenance grants, which is an undeniably progressive move which does help disadvantaged students. I'm not sure if they explained exactly how that would work, but it's quite possible it would make it easier for people to afford the living costs.
Theonik
Member
The problem with student loans as they are now is that it's a pretty inefficient system for cost recovery of education. There is also a very big question of how much of that money is being recovered in the first place. The state is projected to subsidise 44-65% of tuition for people getting student loans on top of actually funding the institutions anyway.
There is a bit of a disingenuous perception here in that people think student loans don't mean the government is paying which is simply not true.
Now having said that, the current system is quite fair on some segments of the population. The question of scraping tuition lies on the cost of doing so, vs the savings of abolishing the loans as well as any benefit in increased skills in the workforce and reducing tax burder for new graduates. Maintenance loans as they stand make little sense too. Since they assume a level of family subsidy that just isn't there. I don't think a majority of middle class families are paying for the living expenses of their children for example, so they are not fit for purpose and act as a signifiant barrier to education. My view about that is in hoping UBI would be politically viable in the next 20 years or so.
There is a bit of a disingenuous perception here in that people think student loans don't mean the government is paying which is simply not true.
Now having said that, the current system is quite fair on some segments of the population. The question of scraping tuition lies on the cost of doing so, vs the savings of abolishing the loans as well as any benefit in increased skills in the workforce and reducing tax burder for new graduates. Maintenance loans as they stand make little sense too. Since they assume a level of family subsidy that just isn't there. I don't think a majority of middle class families are paying for the living expenses of their children for example, so they are not fit for purpose and act as a signifiant barrier to education. My view about that is in hoping UBI would be politically viable in the next 20 years or so.
Dirtyshubb
Member
As others have mentioned the argument that no tuition fees is a bribe to the young is ridiculous and pointless.
The thing that annoys me is that opposing better education available for the young is such a long term harmful move. A population that is better educated is beneficial in so many different ways that not trying our best to make it happen is severely harmful for the countries future.
Of course the right would prefer people to be stupid and have historically tried their best to hold people down but ordinary people who argue against it are doing so with pure stupidity or selfishness.
The thing that annoys me is that opposing better education available for the young is such a long term harmful move. A population that is better educated is beneficial in so many different ways that not trying our best to make it happen is severely harmful for the countries future.
Of course the right would prefer people to be stupid and have historically tried their best to hold people down but ordinary people who argue against it are doing so with pure stupidity or selfishness.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's no evidence to suggest it's limited access to uni from anyone, working class or otherwise. In fact, there's never been more working class people going to uni. Reducing or removing university tuition fees is a de facto handout to the middle class, as they're overwhelmingly more likely still to go to uni than anyone else. I'm all about education but I have no problem with tuition fees.
Dirtyshubb
Member
Surely a simple mistake but considering the situation it's just another example of the authorities and landlords being absolutely clueless and being in no way prepared for something like this.
Honestly I think grenfell is one of the greatest examples of what our country has been like for the last God knows how many years - a completely broken and underfunded system that has scraped by on the bare minimum of resources for years and is utterly unable to be prepared for anything severe suddenly happening, resulting in a complete shut down.
Austerity is simply a refusal (or sinister move) to understand the idea that you can't run any system with the bare minimum of resources without it being completely fucked at some point down the line with a trail of misery and suffering along the way.
As a civil servant I have seen this mentality at play from higher ups all the time. We are expected to do more with less at an increasing rate and it isn't sustainable.
I'm all for improvements but the refusal to just follow through with current improvement plans and perfect it and instead expect huge changes each year is horrible. You end up with less money and resources each year while also trying to improve on everything you learned from last year plus adding a tonne of new things to do just wears workers down and causes massive mental and physical health issues.
You either focus your efforts on perfecting changes first before introducing a whole bunch of new responsibilities or you add more money and resources. The constant expectations of doing everything at once with less resources seriously hurts people long term and currently I don't see it changing.
I've always paid my rent using standing orders, which are under my control. Assuming it's the same for Grenfell residents they'll need to contact their bank to cancel the standing order.
If, for some reason, they're paying by direct debit then they're covered by the direct debit guarantee and are entitled to an immediate refund - https://www.directdebit.co.uk/DirectDebitExplained/Pages/DirectDebitGuarantee.aspx
Whatever the reason people's rents are still going out it should be an easy fix.
Remaining slightly skeptical about this for reasons already stated by other posters but... I wouldn't put it past this Government. They are fucking desperate right now.
They know their legacy is built on sand, and a rising tide of dissatisfaction is lapping at their ankles.
It's been well summery today, so I'm making beach metaphors.
Coriolanus
Banned
I mean, that's the whole trick, isn't it? Decrease funding. If services manage to keep up at the same level as before, yaaay, ignoring absolutely all other factors, you've clearly saved dosh and trimmed the fat. Nothing left to do but to trim even more and see if services are negatively impacted. Even if they are negatively impacted, just look at all this dosh we've saved! Surely it was worth the trade-off, right?
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Dirtyshubb
Member
Exactly.
There is also the pressures of if you are suffering due to stress etc. of making sure you do everything you can to accommodate work otherwise it wouldn't be surprising if you started being seen as a trouble maker or someone who doesn't want to help themselves and so fail your objectives and take all the blame.
- Status