INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3181 Postby Alan H » December 26th, 2017, 11:50 am

Latest post of the previous page:

So, is Davis a liar or merely incompetent and unfit for Government? But then again, if you go for incompetent, you have to ask why his boss hasn't ensured she understood the impact of Brexit.
Brexit studies were 'being prepared' a year before Davis said they didn't exist
David Davis’s department said last year that it was preparing “an assessment of the impact of exit on over fifty sectors of the economy”, undermining his recent claim that the Brexit impact studies do not exist.

The comment was made in a Freedom of Information response from November 2016, suggesting that work was underway on the documents more than a year before the government backtracked on acknowledging their existence.

In addition, the Guardian has found at least 12 references in Hansard, the official record of parliament, to ministers talking about the work to “assess the impact” or “assess the economic impact” of Brexit over the last year.

The findings are likely to fuel suspicions that the Department for Exiting the European Union does have documentary evidence of the impact of Brexit on the economy.

Parliament asked for 58 impact assessments to be handed over to the select committee on exiting the EU last month, so they could examine how Brexit would affect different sectors.

But MPs who were allowed to view the 800-pages of documents ridiculed the analyses for simply setting out the current situation for businesses, explaining how the EU operates and then providing a section on what stakeholders think.

Davis and other ministers claimed they had never said any “impact assessments” existed, and the committee, which is dominated by Conservatives, ruled that he was not in contempt of parliament for failing to release such documents.

However, campaigners believe the government does still hold relevant information setting out the official view of how Brexit could affect the economy and businesses.

A judicial review has been launched by Green MEP Molly Scott Cato, and the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham, to try to force the government to reveal any analysis of the impact of Brexit but it is not certain this can be completed in time.

Launching the review, Scott Cato said: “There are two possibilities. Either the studies do exist, and Davis has lied to the House and must resign. Or the studies do not exist, in which case Davis is guilty of dereliction of duty and must resign. Either way, he cannot maintain the confidence of the House as our Brexit negotiator.”

Asked about the repeated use of the words “impact” and “assess” to describe the documents, the government has changed tack to claim that the documents released to the House of Commons do in fact analyse the impact of leaving the EU.

A spokesman for the Department for Exiting the European Union pointed to recent comments in the House of Commons by Robin Walker, who denies the existence of impact assessments, but said: “The information that has been shared with the select committee and is available to all members of this House in the reading room includes assessments of the impact on the regulatory matters and of the importance of EU trade to different sectors.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3182 Postby Alan H » January 9th, 2018, 2:15 pm

Well, that didn't last long: Backlash over ‘offensive’ tweets causes UK journalist to resign from education board
Controversial journalist Toby Young stepped down from his role on the board of English university regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), after criticism of comments on Twitter and in columns that included repeated references to women’s breasts and comments about disabled people.

The OfS chair described the remarks as “offensive” (The Guardian) and a petition calling for his sacking has been signed by more than 200,000 people.

On stepping down on Tuesday, Young wrote (The Spectator, may be behind paywall) that his appointment had become a “distraction” from the work of the board. Young, a columnist and co-founder of the West London Free School, apologized and said the comments under fire were “ill-judged or just plain wrong.”


Then there's the farce over Greening: Theresa May's reshuffle in disarray as Justine Greening quits
Theresa May’s new year reshuffle was thrown off course when senior members of the cabinet refused to move and Justine Greening quit the government after turning down a job as work and pensions secretary.


But the award for the Tory farce of the day must go to CCHQ: Conservative Party Cabinet reshuffle farce as Chris Grayling is wrongly named Tory party chairman instead of Brandon Lewis
With a headline “Congratulations Chris Grayling” and the hashtag #reshuffle, the tweet from the @Conservatives account appeared to be a gold-plated premature leak of Mrs May’s changes. But it was taken down within 30 seconds and red-faced party officials admitted it was simply wrong.

An hour later, Mr Lewis emerged in Downing Street to be the first minister to process up to the famous front door, making clear that he and not Mr Grayling was getting the job.


screenshot-www.standard.co.uk-2018-01-09-14-09-24-526.png
screenshot-www.standard.co.uk-2018-01-09-14-09-24-526.png (358.66 KiB) Viewed 1977 times


The Tories' gaffe was recorded in Wikipedia, sadly now reverted and replaced with something more anodyne:

screenshot-pbs.twimg.com-2018-01-09-14-12-03-277.png
screenshot-pbs.twimg.com-2018-01-09-14-12-03-277.png (172.96 KiB) Viewed 1977 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3183 Postby Alan H » January 15th, 2018, 8:28 pm

Carillion bosses face inquiry after protecting ‘exorbitant’ £4m bonuses ahead of collapse
Carillion bosses face an investigation into a “shameful” bid to protect their bonuses before the firm went bust, with the company’s collapse now threatening to turn into a major corporate scandal.

The Government warned directors of the firm which handled hundreds of public contracts, that they would be hit with “severe penalties” if found guilty of misconduct in securing some £4m in hand-outs last year.

The bonuses were branded “exorbitant” in the Commons, one former cabinet minister likened the situation to a “British Enron”, while Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the collapse is a “watershed moment” for privatisation.

As the fallout spread, ministers were adamant fault lay squarely with the firm’s management and said taxpayers would avoid significant extra costs, despite stepping in to ensure Carillion-provided public services continued.

But a slew of inquiries are now expected to pick through not only Carillion’s downfall, but the actions of ministers who handed the firm 450 contracts in recent years.

After Carillion failed having racked up debts and liabilities worth £1.5bn, MPs heard how bosses tweaked rules in the firm’s 2016 annual report to make it harder for investors to claw-back bonuses if the company hit trouble.

Previously the firm had the right to reduce bonuses not yet paid, but after the 2016 report so-called “clawback” provisions could only be applied if financial results "have been misstated" or "the participant is guilty of gross misconduct".
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3184 Postby Alan H » January 15th, 2018, 10:55 pm

Why Carillion has gone into liquidation rather than administration
Contrary to popular — and populist — opinion, outsourcing is a messy business with little margin for profit. Or for error. Serco boss Rupert Soames has a lavatory brush on his desk to remind himself not to bid for work below the average cleaner’s 5-6 per cent margin. He calls it his “Shitometer”. But if former Carillion boss Richard Howson had something similar on his desk, he ignored its proximity to the fan.

Today, the former hit the latter — and Carillion entered liquidation.

But among the many questions this outcome raises, the most pertinent is: why liquidation rather than administration?

Administration allows a company to continue to operate, as the administrators attempt to find a buyer for viable parts of the business. Liquidation means a company ceases trading, and the liquidator merely tries to realise any remaining assets and distribute them to creditors.

Carillion’s “compulsory liquidation” proves it had already reached a point where there was nothing worth buying. All it had was its contracts, on which the margins were evidently too low to cover its ever growing liabilities. There was no viable business to sell. There were no meaningful assets.

As one industry rival hinted last week, this absence of assets is not as surprising as it may seem. “All we really do is pre-sell labour and make bets on the long term costs,” he told the FT. And, even if Carillion’s contracts could be thought of as assets, they were too complex or insufficiently valuable for its banks to lend against. They were never going to advance another £300m against low-margin government-linked assets over which they had no control.

Administration may be an option in support-services outsourcing, such as cleaning, where contracts can easily be sold on to a new provider. Carillion managed to offload its hospital facilities work to Serco, for example. But outsourced construction projects, bid for in consortia and involving layers of subcontractors, are too difficult and unprofitable for administrators to unpick.

This begs a second pertinent question: why did Carillion keep bidding for such low-margin work? Why did it not stop bidding years ago, writedown bad contracts and attempt to restructure when its market value was nearer £2bn than £61m? Serco managed to do so. Even Balfour Beatty.

It was evidently because Carillion needed new contracts to keep bringing in the cash it needed pay suppliers and lenders. Adding more construction work, such as the HS2 rail line, was the only way to keep cash coming through the door. It had, in effect, become a lawful sort of Ponzi scheme — using new or expected revenues to cover more pressing demands for payment.

A further similarity with such schemes was the incentive for senior managers to keep bidding, acquiring and chasing cash. Many in the industry are paid bonuses based on revenue growth, not efficiency. Mr Howson assured the City last May that Carillion had made “an encouraging start to the year”, with “increased revenue visibility”. He then resigned after July’s profits warning, having gained £1.5m in pay and bonuses for 2016.

Like all dubious revenue models, however, Carillion’s strategy was ultimately unsustainable. Some hedge funds wondered why Carillion was taking 120 days to pay subcontractors back in 2013 and began short selling its shares to profit from future falls. But it is typically only when key staff leave, and suppliers lose faith, that the strain of trying to transact £10m a day becomes more widely recognised.

Could Carillion have avoided liquidation if it had stopped bidding?

Serco turned itself around after avoiding unprofitable work, and asking shareholders to bear the pain. But with Carillion so desperate for cash, it was clearly willing to bid at any margin.

So the final question is: why did the government allow it to win bids on disastrous terms?

A week after its first profit warning, Carillion, with joint venture partners, secured £1.4bn-worth of work on HS2. It later won half of a £158m contract from the Ministry of Defence and a £62m contract with Network Rail.

Under procurement rules, the government is required to exclude any outsourcer whose bid is “abnormally low”. As one lawyer claims, though: “Carillion has tendered at very low margins, possibly unsustainably low, in order to win these huge volumes of work. If such bids have succeeded, that can only mean either that the regulations themselves are ineffective or that public sector clients lack the confidence or the expertise properly to enforce those rules.”

Evidently, the government does not see any complicity in the Ponzi-like running of Carillion. David Lidington, Cabinet Office minister, made it clear where he saw the irresponsibility lying: “We will continue to maintain partnerships with responsible firms in future,” he said, pointedly.

But, after allowing Carillion to win so many irresponsibly low-margin contracts in the past, giving it that HS2 deal was not a rescue — just a fast track to collapse.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3185 Postby Alan H » January 27th, 2018, 10:47 am

Theresa May helped to scrap anti-sexual harassment law
Theresa May was responsible for scrapping a law that would have given greater protection to the hostesses who were sexually harassed at the Presidents Club fundraiser.

As home secretary and minister for women and equalities under the coalition government, Mrs May led a consultation that led to an amendment to the 2010 Equality Act, one of the final pieces of legislation under Labour.

In the original version, employers were held responsible if a third party harassed someone in their employment, and if they “failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the third party from doing so”.

The relevant clause, in section 40 of the act, was repealed in 2013 as part of the government’s “bonfire of red tape”. It was described as a “potential regulatory burden on business to no apparent good purpose”.

The consultation document was signed by Mrs May and Lynne Featherstone, who is now a Lib Dem peer. The Law Society, which was among those which responded to the consultation, advised against scrapping the clause, saying it would be a retrograde step.

Last Thursday, about 130 women working at the Presidents Club dinner were hired by Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6478
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3186 Postby animist » January 27th, 2018, 1:17 pm

Alan H wrote:Theresa May helped to scrap anti-sexual harassment law
Theresa May was responsible for scrapping a law that would have given greater protection to the hostesses who were sexually harassed at the Presidents Club fundraiser.
the whole thing is awful. Men have power over women and stronger sexual impulses. Horrible combination

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3187 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2018, 11:21 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3188 Postby Alan H » February 2nd, 2018, 10:26 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3189 Postby Alan H » February 6th, 2018, 7:12 pm

A comprehensive list of intimidatory acts that are illegal offline but legal online
Today on Radio 4, Home Secretary Amber Rudd was the latest government minister calling for an overhaul of the criminal law in the name of tackling “intimidation and aggression” on the internet. Her premise is that “what is illegal offline should also be illegal online”. This was repeated by Theresa May in a speech today in Manchester. The thrust of the complaint did not appear to be that existing laws are being poorly interpreted and enforced by police and prosecutors; nor that certain social media companies are famously reticent in providing information to prosecuting authorities; nor that the existing law is piecemeal and mishmash and could do with a jolly good refreshing and consolidating (all of which are undoubtedly true). Rather it was that there is a special quality to the law that means that certain threats or abuse made over the internet simply do not amount to a criminal offence, and that new laws are required pursuant to the Something Must Be Done Act.

To help, I’ve cobbled together a comprehensive list of intimidatory acts that are illegal offline, but not illegal when committed over the internet:


Well worth a read...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3190 Postby Alan H » February 20th, 2018, 4:59 pm

DWP goes back to court to block future benefit appeals
Last year, Politics.co.uk reported that the DWP was using the case of Jayson and Charlotte Carmichael, who successfully challenged the bedroom tax at the Supreme Court, to try to stop other people from relying on the Human Rights Act when bringing a similar appeal.

The department lost that case but it is now dragging the Carmichaels back to court to appeal the decision.
"Should the government win this case, it would severely curtail the powers of the social security tribunal," Lucy Cadd of Leigh Day solicitors, who is acting for the Carmichaels, said.

"The Tribunal would no longer be able to address the injustice that is caused to a social welfare claimant by the application of regulations that breach their rights protected by the Human Rights Act. It is another example of the government seeking to undermine disabled people and social welfare claimants in general."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3191 Postby Alan H » March 3rd, 2018, 11:37 pm

Tories to push through voter ID laws despite just 1 in 44,000,000 votes being fraudulent in 2017
New figures have revealed the infinitesimal scale of voter fraud in the UK, and exposed the government’s upcoming trials of voter ID as unnecessary and disproportionate. They may even discriminate against those most likely to vote Labour.

Figures released by the Electoral Commission show that of over 44 million votes cast in 2017, there were only 28 allegations of voter impersonation. Only one of these allegations ended in a prosecution.

Despite this, the government is going ahead with trials where voters will be required to produce ID before being allowed to vote. At the local elections in May 2018, voters in Bromley, Gosport and Woking will be asked for ID.

In Bromley, this will mean either one piece of photo ID such as a driving licence or passport, or two pieces of non-photo ID, such as utility bills. Anyone who can’t produce either can apply in writing for a ‘certificate of identity’ which must include an ‘attestation in writing from a person of good standing in the community’. If you can’t provide any of these, you lose your right to vote.

The Electoral Reform Society has described the plans for voter ID as ‘unnecessary’ and ‘overbearing’.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3192 Postby Alan H » March 14th, 2018, 1:13 am

Don't forget! We're all in it together, apparently... Austerity will have cast an extra 1.5m children into poverty by 2021
An extra 1.5 million children will have been pitched into poverty by 2021 as a consequence of the government’s austerity programme, according to a study of the impact of tax and benefit policy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The EHRC study forecasts dramatic increases in poverty rates among children in lone parent and minority ethnic households, families with disabled children and households with three or more children.

There are clear winners and losers from austerity tax and benefits changes since 2010, the study says. The regressive nature of the policies means that low-income families have been hit hardest: the poorest fifth will lose 10% of income by 2021, while the wealthiest fifth will see little or no change.

David Isaac, chair of the EHRC, said: “It’s disappointing to discover that the reforms we have examined negatively affect the most disadvantaged in our society. It’s even more shocking that children – the future generation – will be the hardest hit and that so many will be condemned to start life in poverty.”

The commission called on the government to reconsider existing policies that hit the most disadvantaged groups hardest, and to review social security benefit levels to ensure they provide an adequate standard of living.

The study says the negative financial impacts are largely driven by the four-year freeze on working-age benefits from April 2016, cuts to disability benefits and reductions to work allowances in universal credit.

The findings include:

Children in 62% of lone parent households will be in poverty in 2021, compared to 37% in 2010. Lone parent households will lose an average of £5,250 – a fifth of their income.
The largest increases in child poverty measured by ethnic group will be in Pakistani families (up almost a fifth), while Bangladeshi households will lose £4,400 on average.
Households with a disabled adult and a disabled child will shoulder annual cash losses of just over £6,500, equivalent to 13% of their net income. Disabled lone parents with a disabled child stand to lose £10,000 a year.

The study, which was carried out by the economists Jonathan Portes and Howard Reed, examined the cumulative impact on different groups of changes to income tax, VAT, national insurance, social security benefits, tax credits, universal credit and the national living wage.

It concludes that although changes to taxes and benefits were a clear consequence of the government’s commitment since 2010 to reduce the deficit, it was not inevitable that the most vulnerable groups would bear the heaviest burden, and that the precise mix of changes was a political choice.

A government spokesperson said the report did not take into account many changes made since 2010. “Automatic enrolment pension saving and near record employment are just two issues which contribute enormously to people’s lives but are not reflected in the analysis,” they said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3193 Postby Alan H » March 18th, 2018, 4:21 pm

It's quite the conundrum, isn't it? Homelessness minister: I don’t know why rough sleeper numbers are up
The UK’s new homelessness minister has told the Guardian she does not know why the number of rough sleepers has increased so significantly in recent years. Heather Wheeler said she did not accept the suggestion that welfare reforms and council cuts had contributed to the rise.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3194 Postby Alan H » March 20th, 2018, 4:05 pm

BOOM! Cambridge Analytica explodes following extraordinary TV expose
Updated Controversial data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica has been hit with an emergency data seizure order in England following an extraordinary series of events Monday night that revolved around a TV undercover expose.

Following a day in which the company became the focus of attention online, in print, and in the UK Parliament and US Congress for its unethical use of user data, senior executives from the firm were then shown on camera boasting about the use of dark methods, including honey traps, fake news and sub-contracting with ex-spies to entrap individuals.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3195 Postby Alan H » March 23rd, 2018, 11:48 pm

Those eye-popping 6.5% to 29% NHS pay rises are a lie – and I can prove it
In short, the government – and the 13 unions who have agreed to sign up to these bogus figures, with the notable exception of the GMB – have misled NHS staff into thinking their pay rises over the next 3 years are vastly greater than they actually will be.

Yet again (remember, they have form on this), the government is playing smoke and mirrors with NHS staff, the media and the wider public.

Quite why the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, Sky, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail and the rest of the mainstream media have not interrogated these figures for themselves is a mystery. It depresses me beyond belief that not one of them has bothered to do so.

But the bottom line is this.

Mr Hunt, Mrs May, can you not see that you have in NHS staff a 1.5 million-strong workforce of loyal, idealistic, tireless individuals upon whose goodwill the NHS survives?

I am not willing to stand by and allow the men and women with whom I work – the NHS health care assistants, nurses, paramedics, dieticians, administrators, technicians, lab staff, radiographers, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, midwives, occupational therapists and every other invaluable member of the team – to be tricked and misled by duplicitous statistics.

So please, Prime Minister, Secretary of State, could you not, just once – with NHS morale so low and thus the stakes so high – be honest and straightforward with your statistics?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3196 Postby Nick » March 26th, 2018, 2:27 pm

Alan H wrote:Those eye-popping 6.5% to 29% NHS pay rises are a lie – and I can prove it
In short, the government – and the 13 unions who have agreed to sign up to these bogus figures, with the notable exception of the GMB – have misled NHS staff into thinking their pay rises over the next 3 years are vastly greater than they actually will be.

Yet again (remember, they have form on this), the government is playing smoke and mirrors with NHS staff, the media and the wider public.

Quite why the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, Sky, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail and the rest of the mainstream media have not interrogated these figures for themselves is a mystery. It depresses me beyond belief that not one of them has bothered to do so.


There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question. :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3197 Postby Alan H » March 26th, 2018, 2:40 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Those eye-popping 6.5% to 29% NHS pay rises are a lie – and I can prove it
In short, the government – and the 13 unions who have agreed to sign up to these bogus figures, with the notable exception of the GMB – have misled NHS staff into thinking their pay rises over the next 3 years are vastly greater than they actually will be.

Yet again (remember, they have form on this), the government is playing smoke and mirrors with NHS staff, the media and the wider public.

Quite why the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, Sky, the Times, the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Mail and the rest of the mainstream media have not interrogated these figures for themselves is a mystery. It depresses me beyond belief that not one of them has bothered to do so.


There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question. :wink:
What puzzlement; what stats; what mud-slinging?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3198 Postby Nick » March 27th, 2018, 11:07 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:


There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question. :wink:
What puzzlement; what stats; what mud-slinging?


"Mystery" suggests puzzlement

"stats": as quote in the article

"Liar": mud-slinging

You did read it, didn't you, Alan? :wink:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3199 Postby Alan H » March 27th, 2018, 11:20 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question. :wink:
What puzzlement; what stats; what mud-slinging?


"Mystery" suggests puzzlement

"stats": as quote in the article

"Liar": mud-slinging

You did read it, didn't you, Alan? :wink:
Nick, you said:
There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.
Your, you, you, you and you: you attributed those sentiments directly to me. I am not the author of that piece.

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question.
The appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed pay deal was not the issue. You did read it, didn't you, Nick?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3200 Postby Nick » March 27th, 2018, 1:03 pm

Alan H wrote:Nick, you said:
There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.
Your, you, you, you and you: you attributed those sentiments directly to me. I am not the author of that piece.
I just thought you might possibly have made the correction I'd intended, but you didn't. Have we really got down to some sort of Janet and John level?

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question.
The appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed pay deal was not the issue. You did read it, didn't you, Nick?
That is precisely why I said that, Alan!!! I was deliberately setting that aside to address the central point, that the article posted was making a stupid mistake. But, typically, you failed to address that issue, but seek to gripe over the irrelevant. Oh, well. Up to you. :yawn:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 23711
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#3201 Postby Alan H » March 27th, 2018, 1:11 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick, you said:
There's a rather obvious answer to your puzzlement: that you are wrong. Which I think you are. ISTM you don't understand the stats.
Your, you, you, you and you: you attributed those sentiments directly to me. I am not the author of that piece.
I just thought you might possibly have made the correction I'd intended, but you didn't. Have we really got down to some sort of Janet and John level?
What the fuck are you on about, Nick? What 'correction'? Or is this just another nice diversion?

This no comment on how appropriate or otherwise is the proposed pay-deal, just a tiny bit of resistance to indiscriminate mud-slinging, which some people will forward without question.
The appropriateness or otherwise of the proposed pay deal was not the issue. You did read it, didn't you, Nick?
That is precisely why I said that, Alan!!! I was deliberately setting that aside to address the central point, that the article posted was making a stupid mistake. But, typically, you failed to address that issue, but seek to gripe over the irrelevant. Oh, well. Up to you. :yawn:
What 'stupid mistake' was the article making Nick?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests