Friday's rant

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Bring back John Major. The man had class, erudiction and leadership and all three are sorely needed at present.

And the ability to cheat on his wife. He was the man who oversaw the clusterfuck that was the privatisation of the GB Rail industry , the ramifications which are still being felt today, nearly 25 years later, (even Thatcher thought that Rail privatisation was a step too far). Class my arse!

That post has reminded me of Bill Clinton. He was slightly before my time so I really knew very little about him but I finally caught up on the new series of Slow Burn and he really is a horrible human being. It's been mentioned in the podcast thread but I highly recommend it for those who aren't aware of it. The latest series wasn't as good as the Watergate one and suffers a bit from having too many ads but it's still really good.

[Dave Cahill]

John Major, the only child to run away from the
Circus to join an accountancy firm

[fourthirtythree]

Bring back John Major. The man had class, erudiction and leadership and all three are sorely needed at present.

And the ability to cheat on his wife. He was the man who oversaw the clusterfuck that was the privatisation of the GB Rail industry , the ramifications which are still being felt today, nearly 25 years later, (even Thatcher thought that Rail privatisation was a step too far). Class my arse!

A man so hated by his own party that he was frozen out of the Good Friday agreement anniversary celebrations.

A man who wanted nothing to do with the peace process in the first place and had to be forced into it.

A man who looked forward to the Ireland v Northern Ireland games on the rugby calendar!

[fourthirtythree]

David Cameron had the necessary leadership qualities and yet he wasn't able to prevent the euroseptic rump of his party, with the aid of Corbyn and the inept EU, from getting the result they wanted in the referendum.
Comparison with the rugby leadership aren't really relevant.
The PRL is answerable only to itself and perhaps their bankers/bankrollers.
May is honour bound to implement the will of the people.
Anything else is a serious breach of democracy.
For example, following the gay etc rights referendum here. If the government had then refused to implement the legislation what then?
It's a mess and the same people who created the mess are still stirring it.
Both sides are out marching already
May will go, there will be another general election.
What then?
Leadership conundrum - you can LEAD a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Cameron was the worst PM ever (until May) who pandered the blueKip wing of his party and then absolutely shat himself when his kippers started to defect to UKIP. He coughed up a referendum purely to hold and shore up the tory vote. Then he made the disatarous decision (for us) to lead the remain campaign in a 50:50 referendum. By simply being invovled in the remain side I am convinced he cost remain the popular vote (remain should have got ten percent just for having him and his side-kicks rambling around annoying people).

Referendums in the UK are nearly as rare as hen's teeeth and since they are advisory they carry no constituional weight - the analogy with Irish referenda is not a good one where Government are legally bound to follow the result. Given the absolute mess they have made of the negotiations there should either be a stay on Brexit by parliament (hopefully followed swiftly by ditching it altogether) or a new referedum (not a re-run of the first!) based on what we now know (accept this deal, stay, leave with no deal).

Honour bound is a moral obligation not a legal one.
I think everyone who's interested in British politics understand the difference between an Irish referendum and English referendum.
However because a referendum in the UK is such an rare thing it therefore has to be taken seriously and not just treated as advisory, otherwise why bother.
Cameron in actual fact was trying to put the euroseptics to bed for once and for all. It backfired.
Corbyn is the one who really didn't stand up to be counted (imho took a very cynical political decision) I don't think that was an accident.

The House of Lords select committee on the constitutional status of referendums might beg to differ on their actual status. It's not surprising that entry into the EU was by referendum as will exit: UK courts have decided that even on entry the doctrine of Supremacy of European law was in place. In other words, whether the political establishment in the UK admitted it to their constituency or not (they didn't) the concept of UK parliamentary sovereignty as supreme was already undermined. The HoL also presciently warned that this constitutional uncertainty on the UK stood a great chance of being used in a fascist style coup to undermine the separation of powers and put the executive in complete control. Immediately upon the referendum the Tories claimed the courts had no oversight and that parliament's role was to rubber stamp an agreement made by the executive. The Tory elite are literal fascists. Not metaphorical.

Cameron was a craven careerist engaged in an inter party squabble that got out of hand. An utter incompetent. Major was the last grown up in the room in the Tory party (and they hate him). May was. as far as we can tell, pro-Brexit but campaigned for it for purely cynical career reasons. Corbyn is pro-Brexit and failed to either lead his party or accept the wishes of his party and did and does nothing.

This would all go away if the sociopathic war criminal Blair was in charge of the Labour party.

Or Bill Clinton was president of the US (he forced Major, he'd force May or Gove or whoever).

EDIT
The real problem with the referendum isn't that it's advisory or binding, it's that it's not a thing. There wasn't a vote on a specific set of proposals, merely a principle, something which is unenforceable in court through vagueness. This isn't discussed for some reason but it has caused a constitutional crisis in the UK. But it's one they committed themselves to by defining the process of how to leave the EU in the first place. It was unworkable in, of all places, the UK which called for it...

[The Doc]

David Cameron had the necessary leadership qualities and yet he wasn't able to prevent the euroseptic rump of his party, with the aid of Corbyn and the inept EU, from getting the result they wanted in the referendum.
Comparison with the rugby leadership aren't really relevant.
The PRL is answerable only to itself and perhaps their bankers/bankrollers.
May is honour bound to implement the will of the people.
Anything else is a serious breach of democracy.
For example, following the gay etc rights referendum here. If the government had then refused to implement the legislation what then?
It's a mess and the same people who created the mess are still stirring it.
Both sides are out marching already
May will go, there will be another general election.
What then?
Leadership conundrum - you can LEAD a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Cameron was the worst PM ever (until May) who pandered the blueKip wing of his party and then absolutely shat himself when his kippers started to defect to UKIP. He coughed up a referendum purely to hold and shore up the tory vote. Then he made the disatarous decision (for us) to lead the remain campaign in a 50:50 referendum. By simply being invovled in the remain side I am convinced he cost remain the popular vote (remain should have got ten percent just for having him and his side-kicks rambling around annoying people).

Referendums in the UK are nearly as rare as hen's teeeth and since they are advisory they carry no constituional weight - the analogy with Irish referenda is not a good one where Government are legally bound to follow the result. Given the absolute mess they have made of the negotiations there should either be a stay on Brexit by parliament (hopefully followed swiftly by ditching it altogether) or a new referedum (not a re-run of the first!) based on what we now know (accept this deal, stay, leave with no deal).

Honour bound is a moral obligation not a legal one.
I think everyone who's interested in British politics understand the difference between an Irish referendum and English referendum.
However because a referendum in the UK is such an rare thing it therefore has to be taken seriously and not just treated as advisory, otherwise why bother.
Cameron in actual fact was trying to put the euroseptics to bed for once and for all. It backfired.
Corbyn is the one who really didn't stand up to be counted (imho took a very cynical political decision) I don't think that was an accident.

The UK referendum was specifically an advisory one - stated in the enabling legislation. It wasn't a question on a specific wording or proposal - it was essentially a badly worded poll question.

This very point was raised in a recent high court action. Because the leave side had broken electoral law, the result was challenged. If it had been an election or a non-advisory referendum, it would have had to have been re-run. But because it was advisory, the court ruled that even though the law was broken, the government weren't bound by the result and therefore it shouldn't be re-run

[paddyor]

.......
May is honour bound to implement the will of the people.
Anything else is a serious breach of democracy.
For example, following the gay etc rights referendum here. If the government had then refused to implement the legislation what then?
It's a mess and the same people who created the mess are still stirring it.
......

Which is? The problem is that there is no version of Brexit that satisfies a majority of voters. Even the current model which is minimal and ends FOM should in theory satisfy remainers and a significant chunk of the UK electorate who are obsessed with FOM. Even Daivd Davis, Bojo and others had very different ideas of what it would mean.

[Oldschool]

Gentlemen your posts are all very valid viewpoints.
Hard to argue with and in disagreement with each other.
Suggesting that it's ok for the US to bully the UK to stay in the EU or for Tony to do the same is treading on very thin ice. Can a left wing liberal (Tony) be a fascist, it appears so.
Ireland were bullied by the EU and continue to be.
Was that ok, is it ok.
Who benefitted, certainly not the proletariat.
Ireland wants the UK to stay in the EU which is fine but it colours the way we view reality.
The reality is that this is a struggle for control.
It affects us all.
I value the little freedom I have.
The stated policy of the EU is to have a cashless society asap.
Cash is king, the citizen's kingdom is under threat from an unelected elitist entity.
In the EU we should not trust and maybe the citizens of the UK have some innate instinct that is telling them not to trust the EU.
After all it's obvious that being in the EU is better than being out.
When do we get the bill.
What will a cashless EU look like.
Control in the hands of the Elite is the answer.
Then we will really know what it is like to be f^cked over.

[Hornet]

Gentlemen your posts are all very valid viewpoints.
Hard to argue with and in disagreement with each other.
Suggesting that it's ok for the US to bully the UK to stay in the EU or for Tony to do the same is treading on very thin ice. Can a left wing liberal (Tony) be a fascist, it appears so.
Ireland were bullied by the EU and continue to be.
Was that ok, is it ok.
Who benefitted, certainly not the proletariat.
Ireland wants the UK to stay in the EU which is fine but it colours the way we view reality.
The reality is that this is a struggle for control.
It affects us all.
I value the little freedom I have.
The stated policy of the EU is to have a cashless society asap.
Cash is king, the citizen's kingdom is under threat from an unelected elitist entity.
In the EU we should not trust and maybe the citizens of the UK have some innate instinct that is telling them not to trust the EU.
After all it's obvious that being in the EU is better than being out.
When do we get the bill.
What will a cashless EU look like.
Control in the hands of the Elite is the answer.
Then we will really know what it is like to be f^cked over.

My concern would be that when all this is decided the EU will be looking for their pound of flesh from the Republic. (Bit like the socialising of the unsecured bondholder debt).

[paddyor]

Gentlemen your posts are all very valid viewpoints.
Hard to argue with and in disagreement with each other.
Suggesting that it's ok for the US to bully the UK to stay in the EU or for Tony to do the same is treading on very thin ice. Can a left wing liberal (Tony) be a fascist, it appears so.

Who's bullkying them? There are a myriad of options for them to leave but they seem insistent that they keep the benefits of membership but get to opt out of whatever they want immediately. The best way is probably a kind of reverse Switzerland model but they've rejected that.

Ireland were bullied by the EU and continue to be.
Was that ok, is it ok.
Who benefitted, certainly not the proletariat.

They did yeah. Check where the cuts/taxes happened. That fact is the increases were from historic lows that weren't sustainable based on spending(which barely fell).

Ireland wants the UK to stay in the EU which is fine but it colours the way we view reality.
The reality is that this is a struggle for control.
It affects us all.
I value the little freedom I have.
The stated policy of the EU is to have a cashless society asap.
Cash is king, the citizen's kingdom is under threat from an unelected elitist entity.
In the EU we should not trust and maybe the citizens of the UK have some innate instinct that is telling them not to trust the EU.
After all it's obvious that being in the EU is better than being out.
When do we get the bill.
What will a cashless EU look like.
Control in the hands of the Elite is the answer.
Then we will really know what it is like to be f^cked over.

I think the mistake you're making here is not realising that the EU is following consumer trends. You're probably in an increasingly dwindling minority. I've gone weeks without using cash.

[paddyor]

The business case against cash is huge too. You’ve to get someone to get cash, count it, sort it, manage the floats and then lodge it. Not sure if it’s true anymore, but at a rate of once a week a manager walks off with the takings to start a new life somewhere.

What do you need cash for anyway?
Public transport- leap card
Taxi - hailo, though you still need it if you’re out.
Takeaway - just eat, Deliveroo etc

It’s not a project of the elites. It’s a conspiracy of consumers and suppliers.

[Oldschool]

Gentlemen your posts are all very valid viewpoints.
Hard to argue with and in disagreement with each other.
Suggesting that it's ok for the US to bully the UK to stay in the EU or for Tony to do the same is treading on very thin ice. Can a left wing liberal (Tony) be a fascist, it appears so.

Who's bullkying them? There are a myriad of options for them to leave but they seem insistent that they keep the benefits of membership but get to opt out of whatever they want immediately. The best way is probably a kind of reverse Switzerland model but they've rejected that.

Ireland were bullied by the EU and continue to be.
Was that ok, is it ok.
Who benefitted, certainly not the proletariat.

They did yeah. Check where the cuts/taxes happened. That fact is the increases were from historic lows that weren't sustainable based on spending(which barely fell).

Ireland wants the UK to stay in the EU which is fine but it colours the way we view reality.
The reality is that this is a struggle for control.
It affects us all.
I value the little freedom I have.
The stated policy of the EU is to have a cashless society asap.
Cash is king, the citizen's kingdom is under threat from an unelected elitist entity.
In the EU we should not trust and maybe the citizens of the UK have some innate instinct that is telling them not to trust the EU.
After all it's obvious that being in the EU is better than being out.
When do we get the bill.
What will a cashless EU look like.
Control in the hands of the Elite is the answer.
Then we will really know what it is like to be f^cked over.

I think the mistake you're making here is not realising that the EU is following consumer trends. You're probably in an increasingly dwindling minority. I've gone weeks without using cash.

Reference was made that if Bill was running things he be bullying the UK back into (not leaving) the EU.
The implication being why isn't our dear friend Donald Trump doing so (that's what I took from the reference anyway)
I'm not making any mistake, your signing your freedom away, whether you realise it or not.

[paddyor]

No, you’re claim it’s project of the elites is wrong.

[Oldschool]

No, you’re claim it’s project of the elites is wrong.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you.

[paddyor]

You'll probably agree with this article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/nyre ... -poor.html

I don't, though I accept that it makes things harder for the poor. It doesn't address any of the things I pointed out earlier as driving forces. which as I see it are more ground up than top down. Even if you step away from the high street and tills the move away from cash was driven by productivity. My Dad(a builder) used to pay in cash way back in the day. It took about 3 hurs out of his day(collecting the cash, counting it out and driving it around to the sites) and it was massively risky(the bank was on the corner of flats in farview). Paying people via EFT created it's own problems(the first ATM in Ireland was opened at the airport because shift staff for airlines etc couldn't get to the bank before closing on Friday) that the improvement in IT infrastructure has eleminated. There's lots of other stuff that's changed like how to pay suppliers (Stripe, Nuapay), there's little flicking thru chq book stubs for bank reconciliation.

You'll probably find that next to no one under the age of 30 has ever been paid cash, so in 20 years time that's more than half the workforce never got the half envelope of "readies". 90% of banking done on the phone. Remember what banks used to look like in the 90s? Millenials will kill cash.

I get the freedom point btw and it's a valid argument against it(the economist IIRC did a good article on this about 5 years ago) but I don't think pinning the cashless society on some obscure group really advances the argument.

[Peg Leg]

Very tidy review of brexit on the NY Times podcast (The Daily) yesterday

[fourthirtythree]

Suggesting that it's ok for the US to bully the UK to stay in the EU or for Tony to do the same is treading on very thin ice. Can a left wing liberal (Tony) be a fascist, it appears so.

I don't think it's okay for the US to bully the UK, but conservative England seems to be just fine with being bent over a barrel by the US. It's a very, very special relationship. Given that, my own personal wellbeing has benefited from the UK being pushed around against its will (peace process) in the past and it would suit me if it happened again.

Tony is a right wing liberal. Very explicitly decoupling liberalism from left wing politics is precisely what the "third way" he and Clinton espoused is about. That's their actual agenda. It's associated with the Washington consensus, and globalisation.

Fascism is, as Walter Benjamin said in the 1930s, an aesthetic rather than a political ideology. Tony has the executive control part, militarism... he doesn't use racism as a divisive force blaming an other within the population for the ills, he didn't fetishis an imagined prelapsarian past, didn't do the uniforms and parades thing, wasn't particularly nationalist (see above, he was explicitly internationalist) so Blair is many things (maybe a war criminal. a liar, a sociopath possibly) but considering him a fascist is a redefinition of the term in a sense which renders it both all inclusive and functionally useless.

Factions of the current tories on the other hand are very explicitly and deliberately fascist as parties of capital in attempts to appeal to the masses find fascist tropes almost irresistible.

[Peg Leg]

The Term "Side Hustle" being used by corporations to mask their selling of low wage, gig economy labour to people who need to work more than one job to make ends meet.
This and the acceptance of the gig economy full stop, all the risk sits with the individual no responsibility accepted by the entity.

[Oldschool]

The rising cost of the proposed new national childrens hospital.
It should be named the Monopoly Money Childrens Hospital.

[Lar]

Can we pay for it with Monopoly money please?

[rooster]

The rising cost of the proposed new national childrens hospital.
It should be named the Monopoly Money Childrens Hospital.

Those buildings never come in on price, they seem to plan them without actually talking to senior staff who know what is needed then as the build goes bits are added on, then add in the fact that tendering such a building on a price only basis is stupid as you finish up with an out of date building before it opens.