May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[elliss]

U turn May ,  gives  a hefty bung to  the  DUP  , to  buy their support, [ democracy ?? ]

 Paid for by the UK taxpayer,  aka known as  fools ,  not many of us left .

Edited June 26, 2017 by elliss

[evadgib]

PM Commons statement on European Council: 26 June 2017

[rockingrobin]

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

PM Commons statement on European Council: 26 June 2017

Did you read the paragraph of maintaining the pension uprating

[goldenbrwn1]

19 minutes ago, evadgib said:

PM Commons statement on European Council: 26 June 2017

The usual responses from each side of the media. Some saying disgrace and betrayal of people who voted brexit and the obvious others saying not enough rights given ect.  I think it's rather generous and fair. Well done to the government for a change. The EU commission will probably stick their noses up at it but I'm sure behind the scenes , actual elected European government officials will be pleased.

 

 

[mommysboy]

7 hours ago, Johnyo said:

 

Amazing!!

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Classic!!!

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08vxt11

 

This radio 4 play held me spellbound - a dystopian future of the NHS

 

recommended 

Cheers for that.

[SheungWan]

56 minutes ago, elliss said:

U turn May ,  gives  a hefty bung to  the  DUP  , to  buy their support, [ democracy ?? ]

 Paid for by the UK taxpayer,  aka known as  fools ,  not many of us left .

A bung? See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/arlene-foster-meet-theresa-may-finalise-dup-deal-prop-tory-minority/

 

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

The usual responses from each side of the media. Some saying disgrace and betrayal of people who voted brexit and the obvious others saying not enough rights given ect.  I think it's rather generous and fair. Well done to the government for a change. The EU commission will probably stick their noses up at it but I'm sure behind the scenes , actual elected European government officials will be pleased.

 

 

 

I expect we'll be signing up for the Euro next, and agreeing to double contributions.

 

Can anyone remind me why we are bothering to leave?

 

 

[mommysboy]

At least it is not going to be a hard Brexit....not for the EU anyway. 

[evadgib]

9 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Did you read the paragraph of maintaining the pension uprating

Yes, and have flagged it to the consortium ?

[dick dasterdly]

On 6/25/2017 at 10:07 PM, billd766 said:

The state certainly did not make my life what it is.

 

No it wasn't bought and paid for by the taxpayer. I should know as I am still a taxpayer starting in July 1959 until the day I die. I made my own choices in my life as to what I would do, where I would work etc. Certainly the state helped me in my early years when I volunteered to join the RAF, NOT conscripted, It didn't help me after I left, nor for the 3 careers that I had after I left.

 

They were MY choice and nobody elses.

 

I am certainly not whinging about it.

To be fair - the state certainly paid for my education and health care (my father was poorly paid and so paid little into the tax 'coffers').

 

As a childless adult always paying income tax (until I was fortunate enough to be able to retire at 47) - I know that I more than repaid the 'deficit'. 

[Flustered]

15 hours ago, elliss said:

U turn May ,  gives  a hefty bung to  the  DUP  , to  buy their support, [ democracy ?? ]

 Paid for by the UK taxpayer,  aka known as  fools ,  not many of us left .

And if Comrad Corbyn formed the Government, how much would he have to pay the DUP,  SNP, LibDems, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru because he would need all of their support just to squeeze past the Tories.

 

Think it through. Does that make you one of your fools?

[Flustered]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

To be fair - the state certainly paid for my education and health care (my father was poorly paid and so paid little into the tax 'coffers').

 

As a childless adult always paying income tax (until I was fortunate enough to be able to retire at 47) - I know that I more than repaid the 'deficit'. 

Sorry Dick, the State paid for nothing. The State built the schools and paid the teachers with Tax Payers money. Doesn't matter how much money your father paid in, he is a tax payer and so contributed to your education.

 

There is no State money, just Tax Payers money spent on pur behalf by elected Government.

[dick dasterdly]

Have to agree.  Looking to Tracy Ullman as a source, is when we know we've reached the 'bottom of the barrel' .

[Orac]

And if Comrad Corbyn formed the Government, how much would he have to pay the DUP,  SNP, LibDems, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru because he would need all of their support just to squeeze past the Tories.
 
Think it through. Does that make you one of your fools?

Comrade Corbyn would not need the support of those parties as he could form a minority government, put forward a legislative agenda chock full of goodies that appeal to "the many and not the few" and austerity be damned then challenge the HoC vote it down triggering a new election.

We have returned to an age of two party politics and the platform he would gain from this coupled with the disarray the Tories would be in since it would be foolish of them to go into another election with TM at the helm would put him in a position that doesn't bear contemplating.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

Comrade Corbyn would not need the support of those parties as he could form a minority government, put forward a legislative agenda chock full of goodies that appeal to "the many and not the few" and austerity be damned then challenge the HoC vote it down triggering a new election.

We have returned to an age of two party politics and the platform he would gain from this coupled with the disarray the Tories would be in since it would be foolish of them to go into another election with TM at the helm would put him in a position that doesn't bear contemplating.

 

 

Better not to contemplate it then.

[jpinx]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

To be fair - the state certainly paid for my education and health care (my father was poorly paid and so paid little into the tax 'coffers').

 

As a childless adult always paying income tax (until I was fortunate enough to be able to retire at 47) - I know that I more than repaid the 'deficit'. 

That's a noble sentiment, but barely covers the reality of what a person pays for or gains from state distributed wealth.  What about the other "personal service" like healthcare/NHS, state pension, etc, and the more generally distributed benefits of infrastructure of roads, power and cables, water, defence, and many more.?  All the money collected from the population in the myriad of taxes is then redistributed according to politics -- not according to need. 

[SheungWan]

17 hours ago, Flustered said:

The same as the rest of the Strawmans posts........Absolutely nothing worth reading.

What a relief then to benefit from the contribution of self-regarding personal potted histories from brexiteers who have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps against all the odds.

[Flustered]

Just now, SheungWan said:

What a relief then to benefit from the contribution of self-regarding personal potted histories from brexiteers who have pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps against all the odds.

Another great contribution to the thread by the Strawman a legend in his own mind.

[jpinx]

42 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

Comrade Corbyn would not need the support of those parties as he could form a minority government, put forward a legislative agenda chock full of goodies that appeal to "the many and not the few" and austerity be damned then challenge the HoC vote it down triggering a new election.

We have returned to an age of two party politics and the platform he would gain from this coupled with the disarray the Tories would be in since it would be foolish of them to go into another election with TM at the helm would put him in a position that doesn't bear contemplating.

Therein lies the root of the UK's problem -- an antiquated, unworkable electoral FPTP system getting a government into power.  There is zero attempt at concensus and less at co-operation.  With a population divided and conquered, the parties only want power - they have no interest in the good they can do the nation.

Edited June 27, 2017 by jpinx

[SheungWan]

21 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Therein lies the root of the UK's problem -- an antiquated, unworkable electoral FPTP system getting a government into power.  There is zero attempt at concensus and less at co-operation.  Divided and conquered, the parties only want power - they have no interest in the good they can do the nation.

Ahem! You haven't forgotten that we had 'erm.....a referendum on this matter not so long ago in 2011 did you? Maybe you would like a second referendum on the issue as you are clearly still unhappy?

Edited June 27, 2017 by SheungWan

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Ahem! You haven't forgotten that we had 'erm.....a referendum on this issue not so long ago in 2011? Maybe you would like a second referendum on the issue?

Referendums(ae) are not a workable electoral system since they neatly divide the population into two with only empty promises by either side. It's a Hobson's Choice for a voter -- there is no "non-of-the-above option other than to abstain.

 

PR in some of it's forms is what's needed to remove the confrontational style and to provide genuine in proportion to the minorities - who have exactly the same rights as the majority. 

 

As the saying goes - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. 

[SheungWan]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Referendums(ae) are not a workable electoral system since they neatly divide the population into two with only empty promises by either side. It's a Hobson's Choice for a voter -- there is no "non-of-the-above option other than to abstain.

 

PR in some of it's forms is what's needed to remove the confrontational style and to provide genuine in proportion to the minorities - who have exactly the same rights as the majority. 

 

As the saying goes - if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. 

I am sure one day the UK political system will be adjusted in accordance with your visions.

[jpinx]

Just now, SheungWan said:

I am sure one day the UK political system will be adjusted in accordance with your visions.

The irony is that Westminster were/have been trying to force "power-sharing" on N.Ireland for many years, on and off, but they won't accept it for themselves.  Too much loss of power at stake.   

[Flustered]

You pays your money and you takes your chance,

 

 

PR

 

 

Disadvantages

 

§  Coalition governments, which in turn lead to legislative gridlock and consequent inability to carry out coherent policies.

§  A destabilizing fragmentation of the party system. PR can reflect and facilitate a fragmentation of the party system. It is possible that extreme pluralism can allow tiny minority parties to hold larger parties to ransom in coalition negotiations.

§  A platform for extremist parties.

§  Governing coalitions which have insufficient common ground in terms of either their policies or their support base.

§  Small parties getting a disproportionately large amount of power

§  The inability of the voter to enforce accountability by throwing a party out of power or a particular candidate out of office

§  Difficulties either for voters to understand or for the electoral administration to implement the sometimes complex rules of the system.

 

Advantages

 

§  Moving to proportional representation (PR) in the UK may offer would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of winning seats in Parliament.

§  The current First Past the Post electoral system is considered unrepresentative, as candidates can be elected with a very small share of the votes while all other votes cast in the constituency are wasted.

§  PR ensures that the parties would have to appeal to their core supporters, rather than a small number of so called ‘swing voters’ in marginal seats.

§  It could be argued that PR delivers fairer treatment of minority parties and independent candidates

§  Under PR fewer votes are ‘wasted’ as more people’s preferences are taken into account

§  PR potentially offers greater and more-representative choice for voters.

§  PR may encourage turn-out and reduce apathy.

§  PR rarely produces an absolute majority for one party, however, it could be argued that PR ensures greater continuity of government and requires greater consensus in policy-making.

[evadgib]

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You post in a brexit thread and say it had nothing to do with brexit, yet this is how the programme was described.

 

"Tracey Breaks the News will see the comedian sending up the results of the General Election, and spoofing the one-year anniversary of the Brexit referendum through the eyes of its major players."

 

You stick with the reference to Americans and I will stick with mine - its going down the toilet.

 

Why not come back after you've watched it & let the board know if I wasted my time or if it only favoured the b-b-brexiters cause?

 

There's an element in both camps that will not tolerate anything on these boards except subservience or complete capitulation by the opposite side and I for one am having none of it  

Edited June 27, 2017 by evadgib

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Flustered said:

You pays your money and you takes your chance,

 

 

PR

 

 

Disadvantages

 

§  Coalition governments, which in turn lead to legislative gridlock and consequent inability to carry out coherent policies.

§  A destabilizing fragmentation of the party system. PR can reflect and facilitate a fragmentation of the party system. It is possible that extreme pluralism can allow tiny minority parties to hold larger parties to ransom in coalition negotiations.

§  A platform for extremist parties.

§  Governing coalitions which have insufficient common ground in terms of either their policies or their support base.

§  Small parties getting a disproportionately large amount of power

§  The inability of the voter to enforce accountability by throwing a party out of power or a particular candidate out of office

§  Difficulties either for voters to understand or for the electoral administration to implement the sometimes complex rules of the system.

 

Advantages

 

§  Moving to proportional representation (PR) in the UK may offer would give minority parties and independent candidates a better chance of winning seats in Parliament.

§  The current First Past the Post electoral system is considered unrepresentative, as candidates can be elected with a very small share of the votes while all other votes cast in the constituency are wasted.

§  PR ensures that the parties would have to appeal to their core supporters, rather than a small number of so called ‘swing voters’ in marginal seats.

§  It could be argued that PR delivers fairer treatment of minority parties and independent candidates

§  Under PR fewer votes are ‘wasted’ as more people’s preferences are taken into account

§  PR potentially offers greater and more-representative choice for voters.

§  PR may encourage turn-out and reduce apathy.

§  PR rarely produces an absolute majority for one party, however, it could be argued that PR ensures greater continuity of government and requires greater consensus in policy-making.

The fact that you have put together the pros and cons of that system but not of the FPTP system speaks volumes.  (Nice synopsis, BTW) The FPTP system gives power to the most numerous only - it makes no concession to anything other than numbers.  That reason alone is enough to reject it as a system. How many complaints have their been over that last year about the close-ness of the numerical result and the way the over-simplistic system referendum did not include more options?  If the referendum had even included a yes/no option for the customs union, the free-trade, the free movement of labous, etc, etc - all as separate questions - that would have given a much clearer picture of how the people were really thinking. 

 

There's no future in saying that the politicians could not fulfill the wishes thus expressed, but they don't fulfill the promises they make anyway -- what's new there?    

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by jpinx

[Flustered]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

The fact that you have put together the pros and cons of that system but not of the FPTP system speaks volumes. 

It would have been too large a post and I tried to be unbiased on the pros and cons..

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, Flustered said:

It would have been too large a post and I tried to be unbiased on the pros and cons..

Agreed - but it begs the question I posed......

"How many complaints have their been over that last year about the close-ness of the numerical result and the way the over-simplistic system referendum did not include more options? "

.......  There is obviously deep dis-satisfaction with the  way things turned out due to the voting system employed. 

[Flustered]

I am not sure I agree with FPTP but overall I prefer it to PR and it's variants.

 

Different parties in Government take different stands but IMO this is better than stagnation.

 

A little blood letting (Labour) every now and then is better than the pressure building up (Tory).

 

And the world turns on and not much changes.