Lordship 516

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Direct rule on it's way?... The ConMay/DUP coalition/alliance would make that untenable...Sinn F?in would cause havoc as direct rule would involve Thearse & her good swivel-eyed buddies in the DUP ruling NI - there would be havoc & Ireland would have serious issues with that situation as they are equal guardians of the Good Friday Agreement. Thearse Mayniac has really excelled herself this time & I hope for the good of all the country that she is able to see her way to performing one of her now famous U-turns, hastily turning away in disgust at the very notion that the DUP/Red Hand/UVF/UDA loons could ever be suitable partners in Westminster for any reason. They have been trying to subvert the Good Friday agreement since the start; they got rid of Rev Ian Paisley because they regarded his constructive participation in the NI power sharing government as appeasement of the old enemy [sinn F?in]. They want nothing other than total domination in NI, going back to the good old days when Taigs were kept in their place, where the Unionists controlled all the allocation of housing, grants for schools, jobs in Harland & Wolfe, Short & Harland [where you could only get a job if you were a Protestant & a member of the Orange Order], Local Authority jobs, Government jobs & so on; it was like North Korea with total control from the centre, except the Catholics could leave - which is what they tried to engineer through social & economic exclusion. This is what caused the provisional IRA to come into existence - not some malicious death wish that the republican population wanted so they could cause trouble. This will be what the DUP will attempt to re-engineer in some manner - domination in NI regardless of & with contempt for the Good Friday Agreement. Fascism under a christian right banner & hatred a la KKK. Foster is not a Free Presbyterian but is driven by their ideology as they dominate the party & if she dared to deviate from their hateful stance she would soon be out on her ear. May is dancing with a fairly despicable devil & it will bite her on thearse.

@ red devil May will already have been in negotiations with the DUP i regard to the NI assembly but I think she will not have experienced how intransigent the DUP might be. These are evangelical christian fundamentalists steeped in a 19th century baptist separatist culture of exclusion. May will have a lot of fun with these 'good' people.

Thearse will have no choice but to go for a soft Brexit & she will rely on cross-party support for that to neutralize the hard brexiteers in the Tory party who will be left spitting nails along with Farage blowing on the side. the DUP will extract some major concessions [triple-lock & winter fuel payments, NHS & education] & some special infrastructure funding for NI & will also try to re-negotiate elements of the NI assembly set-up but May would have problems in accommodating them too much on that - too complicated to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement - could end up as direct rule again - more hassle than it would be worth. After a time the hard Brexiteers & main chancers - Johnson, Gove & others will make a move & try to shift her with another caretaker [a la John Major] being placed in position [Ken Clarke ?]. 2022 will be an interesting GE - Labour anyone..? They have the platform - all they need do is keep a cool head & avoid trouble - there will be lots of trouble for the government no matter what happens.

The DUP consist of ex-paramilitary members/sympathizers - Ulster Resistance & UVF & consist mainly of right wing Free Presbyterian Church [biblical creationists] members who regarded Rev Ian Paisley as being too liberal [they threw him out of the church he founded] and a traitor to their cause for co-operating with Sinn F?in in the Good Friday Agreement. These people are very dour & bitter people. http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp Hard on maintaining relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom at any cost Climate change deniers butthey liked thr RHI money - very, very much. Hard on Civil Rights Hard on abortion Hard on Gay marriage & LBGT rights - how they will get on with the new openly gay Taoiseach will be interesting Against Gaelic being taught in NI schools despite being taught in Scotland & England & Welsh in Wales. Socialist on Triple lock on pensions & on maintaining Universal benefits such as winter fuel payments Wants a reduced VAT rate for tourism [similar to Ireland's] Wants a special infrastructure fund for NI Arlene Foster/Nigel Dodds have a confusing Pick'n'mix version of Brexit - possibly a 'flaccid' Brexit Hard on immigration - racist & sexist overtones throughout their history even from Arlene Foster - described Michelle O'Neill [sinn F?in] as 'blonde' Soft on the border with Ireland - want to act as a conduit for Irish exports to the UK [legalized smuggling - a NI passtime] Their are fiercely dogmatic & inflexible - I wish Thearse well in trying to deal with them - they are implacable negotiators & will make her existance impossible.

June sees the end of May..!

With Sinn F?in abstaining & the Speaker + assistants not voting then the practical majority is 321 650 - (6+3) = 641 641/2 = 320.5 [321] - will still be a very close call but Thearse May will be dumperd.... YouGov model of poll is closest to the Exit Poll Conserv 302 Labour 269 LibDem 12 SNP 44 - got Scotland wrong (?)

I will be so happy to lose my bet..!

Just trying to extrapolate from the detail of the polls [such as they are]. YouGov - their national sample is a reasonable sample but their methodology is largely untested & the individual constituency samples are much too small to give a any representative result. The other polls have their own limitations as they poll too few on a daily basis. The poll of polls is interesting but it only illustrates daily trends [& daily bias] Having a punt by trying to extract common data from all the polls... If Sinn F?in continue to abstain from taking their seats in parliament then the total number of sitting MPs will likely be 644 [sinn F?in to gain 2 seats] leaving the requirement for a majority at 321 [speaker & assistants also excluded]. Conservatives - 335/355 [plus 8 NI Unionists] Labour - 220/235 [plus 2 NI SDLP] - might lose some, win some with probably no net gain or loss SNP - 42/47 - unlikely to hold 2015 position, LibDem - 6/8 not enough data - but expect possible losses but little chance of gains. May to win but not with such a great majority as some polls have predicted. I've placed a bet on the total Tory seat projection [25 to 49 seats] - lets see if we can get a good night out on my winnings..!

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Daddys lecturing again - we all share the same > pubs and we have people like this lecturing us. Sorry - I thought that I might be entitled to express my opinion & beliefs as well as the freedom to express my abhorrence at the views of others. I shouldn't wish to be your daddy..!

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > with internment you only create guerrilla > > academies which these type of people would love > to > > have. Some prisons have this facility for > > extremists already & it is very difficult to > > interrupt this effect. The only effective > method > > is to remove them from the UK entirely - revoke > > their right to stay in the UK & deport them to > > wherever they came from - if they weren't born > in > > the UK. Pass emergency laws & temporarily > > derogate from the Human Rights conventions for > > particular purposes. If they have were born in > the > > UK have them commit to a contract & relocate > them > > in some secure manner. > > > > Difficult problem but has to be approached with > a > > robust solution - otherwise other Manchesters & > > London Bridges await us for the future. > > I agree - robust action is needed urgently. We > have been so very naive and tolerant. Love and > Christian prayers for peace just do not cut any > ice with Islamic terrorists. They are bullies. > > These Jihadis are deranged terrorists and they > work on fear and our inertia. They recognise > only two things Allah and force. Therefor we have > to use FORCEFULL measures against them. > > Such action include:--- > > 1. Declare a state of emergency, now. > > 2. Have an armed soldier accompany each policeman > on patrol. Hence police numbers are effectively > doubled. > > 3. Derogate the Human Rights legislation which the > terrorists have exploited for the last 20years and > which has made HR lawyers rich. > > 4. Stop all young muslim males of UK origin from > returning to the UK after being away in a muslim > country. > > 5. Stop all young muslim males from going overseas > - unless they emigrate permanently. > > 6. Deport any who are on the watch list if they > are of foreign origin. > > 7. Set up a detainment camp on Lundy Island for > the others on the watch list. If they want to > leave Lundy then let them go to a muslim country > of their choice, after they agree to have a small > crescent tatoo on each of their forearms. > > I know it will incense the Libs and it will take > ploitical fortitude. it is the only course of > action which will avoid a disaster and it has to > be done quickly otherwise we will have an > ever-growing problem on our hands. GG You responded to my post with such an awful litany of abhorrent suggestions that I have to disassociate myself from any of the suggestions that you have put forward. My post was as mainly thinking out loud about the conundrum that we are faced with in a democracy - freedom to go about our independent life & freedom from interference from others, whether that be government or private people. Those who can conform to reasonable norms of behaviour & civility have a right to this freedom; those who fall outside these reasonable norms and engage in anti-social behaviour that impacts others so aggressively that it disallows their reasonable enjoyment of freedoms that have been so hard fought for over hundreds of years. I fully believe that the government would be within their rights [on behalf of us all] to exclude people of whatever foreign origin if they actually commit a crime against any person including hate crimes. How to treat people who are UK/Euro citizens is another matter. In the short term some form of control may be necessary - TPIMS or whatever but education/integration must form a great part of this as must acceptance/inclusion of all origins/religions/beliefs on an equal footing. A fair society with an enlightened foreign policy & a healthy economy with a good health service, decent housing & employment opportunities for all would play a huge part in this agenda of fostering a peaceful society. instead of these hate mongers converting us, we must seek to convert them to a way of peace. Hating in return will not achieve that.

Read about Henry George & [Progress and Poverty ] & Land Value Tax. You can also read about what Adam Smith [The Wealth of Nations] & even what Milton Friedman had to say along with Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz all of whom support this form of taxation. Fear mongering that your land will be taxed at 3% of it's value is entirely wrong. It is likely to be taxed at about the same as Council Tax but those who currently have large land & property resources & store their wealth there to shelter against taxes would find themselves losers under this method - suddenly they have to pay their fair share. There is another benefit - for landowners who are hoarding valuable sites that houses could be built on this tax will force them to develop or sell out to someone else who will develop & make land less scarce - this will reduce the cost of housing by making houses plentiful; not so good for speculators but very good for those who need housing. It is possibly the most fair & efficient tax that could be employed & thus the Conservatives will be against it. Fairness is not on their agenda. They have slurred it as a 'Garden Tax' to stir up an emotive opposition to this form of progressive taxation.

:)

Not just EU laws but UN conventions & UK laws also. The Human Rights of others have also to be considered - we all have the right to a reasonable secure life. Derogation from conventions can be made if a national emergency is declared. I think we have reached that stage. All sectors of the greater community ought to subscribe to that so we can live in peace & security. Any foreigner who commits a crime against humanity ought to be automatically removed after a period of detention for their crime.

"Boris Johnson has said he sees ?no reason? to withdraw Donald?s Trump state visit..." Johnson sees no reason - ever..! He's just an obnoxious Bullingdon yob... Should eff off to US where he belongs...

with internment you only create guerrilla academies which these type of people would love to have. Some prisons have this facility for extremists already & it is very difficult to interrupt this effect. The only effective method is to remove them from the UK entirely - revoke their right to stay in the UK & deport them to wherever they came from - if they weren't born in the UK. Pass emergency laws & temporarily derogate from the Human Rights conventions for particular purposes. If they have were born in the UK have them commit to a contract & relocate them in some secure manner. Difficult problem but has to be approached with a robust solution - otherwise other Manchesters & London Bridges await us for the future.

Very daring - a bit of a mod..! ...but christian right...[wrong]

keano77 Wrote: > Not necessarily. It's generally accepted that the > Paris Accord, while being the best international > agreement we have so far, will do very little to > solve climate change. The Paris Accord is constructed as a precurser to an effective solution that will emanate from the PA over time. It seeks to align many different attitudes & circumstances so that future agreements can be negotiated within an agreed framework & flexible timetables. As such it is better that all the squabbling, ducking & diving that went before it as it will lead each country to set down defined criteria whereby they intend to operate. > At the moment we have green technology subsidised > by tax payers that doesn't work. Wind turbines > that need to be turned off if it's too windy. > Solar panels that cost more to produce and run > than the energy they provide. A lot of the product of wind turbines is unused or underused due to much of the power is being produced at nighttime [generated at night when demand is lowest]. This is currently being worked on by way of refining the costs & methodologies of storage [batteries & electricity to gas/hydrogen] that show some economic promise [timeshifting - produce @ 2.5P at night & sell @ 9.5p during the day - the differential more than pays for the storage] This will reduce the number of thermal generators during peak demand. Little by little it will get refined & CO2 reduced significently. Water can be split to raw hydrogen & oxygen at 40% of the stored power - It can be combined with CO2 to form CH4 [methane] in a virtuous circle, in both streams the surplus oxygen can be used to combust the hydrogen/methane leading to a 'sweeter' mix & less dioxins produced - it will come on stream within the next 5 years or so as the processes are refined & become more economic. The economics are already promising & the savings in CO2 significent. Modern solar panels vary in their carbon footprint including the embodied energy of mining the materials & production. For the UK this approximates to about 60grams/kWh of electricity produced & for southern Europe it approximates to 35 grams/kWh of electricity produced. This is 10 times lower than the output of fossil fuels [typically 500 grams/kWh in the UK & over 1000 grams/kWh for coal fired generators. Maintenance of PV panels is minimal - mostly a bucket & sponge for cleaning & replacement of some minor electronics & rectifiers. Most PV panels for industrial use come with 20/30 year guarantees both for performance & breakdown. The environmental payback for the UK is down to 2.5 years or thereabouts & the economic payback is currently down to about 5 years @ 900 kWh/M2/year. For southern Europe the equivalent is 1.5 years for environmental payback & about 3.5 years for economic payback. Its best to interrogate the actualities of these technologies before you jump to criticize the efforts being made to date. It is a work in progress & has been better than doing nothing. > It amuses me that Facebook and Apple are > pretending to be outraged. Between them they have > probably been responsible or more electricity > consumption (in the West at least) manufacturing > tablets and phones, constantly recharging them, to > engage in social media. Apple, Amazon & Facebook are at the forefront of reducing their footprints & also at the leading edge of energy storage not only for environmental reasons but for continued security of supply. Greater reduction can be achieved by reducing demand mainly through increasing insulation but the conservative government abandoned the near Zero/Sustainability 6 requirements for new homes. This was a retrograde step lobbied for by Tory backing major developers so they could save a very small amount of money [about ?5,000 to ?10,000 per unit] that they want to go directly to their bottom line. > Resist the knee-jerk reaction malumbu. keano77 - Methinks that it is yourself that excels at the kneejerks..!

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need immigrants, as they do jobs the native > workers do not want to do, like pick fruit and veg > in the fields, drive buses and trains, sweep the > streets, empty the bins, nurse the sick in > hospitals etc. Without these people doing the jobs > they do, parts of this country would quickly grind > to a halt. ...but, do we...? Perhaps the gap in labour availability ought to be filled in various other ways. More education & training, better wages for nurses & other roles so as to attract more to the jobs; a better minimum living wage coupled with insistence that long term unemployed either take gainful work or enter a productive training program. Other countries appear to be able to manage so why not the UK..? Depending on people who have no opportunity other than take a degraded wage is tantamount to condoning quasi-slavery wages, forcing the weakest in society from wherever into taking work at a level that cannot sustain their living at a decent level. Yes, there are those who appear grateful for that kind of work but this is a reflection of an unjust & unethical society that condones & maintains such practices. Wage exploitation is a form of corruption and though free from chattel slavery gives no security of a living wage, even temporarily. A chattel slave had more security as the master had a proprietary interest in maintaining the slaves welfare. Paying below the living wage is not much different than the slavers of old..!

Conservatives are constantly quoting that we need the businesses & the wealthy as job creators which is a total bunch of B@##ocks. The corollary is also true - the corporations & the wealthy need us as their consumers & couldn't operate their businesses without well trained, well educated workers at all levels. Without us, the likes of Branson might as well retire permanently to Necker & grow some vegetable & raise chickens. Wealth is mainly the produce of the land, labour & technology of all society. Land would have little or no value without the consumption of the produce therefrom & produce [both real & virtual] would have no value without consumption. The wealthy corporations & individuals need us as much & possibly more than we need them. Of course risk & enterprise need to be rewarded in order to provide incentive but there needs to be a balance in the distribution of the annual proceeds of economic activity so a country can prosper & its people live with dignity & security. This idea is anathema to the Toryboy concept of society - they want, even need an underclass to propagate their ideal of living & will fight dirty to achieve that. They have always promoted the concept of the upper class that have had more political power than those of lower classes due to their abundance of resources and influence & they intend to keep it that way - this is their core driver.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see the Maybot stuck to her robotic script last > night about there being no magic money tree when a > nurse queried about pay rises, yet there's a magic > money tree when it comes to MP's salary increases > and expenses. Now if only we had a magic money bus > to give the NHS ?350m a week... Yup..! Plus there has been a magic money tree for the conservatives & the coalition that effectively stole from the nurses & other public servents & also borrowed hundreds of billions to distribute to their wealthy friends. The Money Tree is OURSSSSSSSSS & not for little people - shut up & do yer job..!

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clearly the most effective way to reduce spending > is to eliminate anyone over 65 in a one off budget > rebalancing cull. Apart from reducing the pensions > bill, this will solve the housing crisis as well > as the NHS capacity issues. Why stop with eliminating the old? - eliminate the sick, the disabled, the poor & the unemployed & you can have your ideal eugenicist utopia that the gallant Nazi cousins fought for. Then the ?258billion saved would build all the houses that were needed - solution all round. Fixed.

Trump has done more for climate change than any other person on the planet - in one stroke he has united the world to reaffirm their commitment to the Paris agreement [& even more] & has even united much of the US in favour of climate change - even the Mayor of Pittsburgh has affirmed their approval of the Paris agreement. We should be greatful to Trump for his good efforts.

NOT a U-turn ...a clarification..! Stable Policy [not!] - ?100,000.00 protected Wobble policy clarification ?100,000.00 protected Cap on contribution to dementia care All of this will favour the richest house owners Example 1] House worth ?175,000 [say in North East] a) ?100,000 protected b) Cap of ?75,000 c) Residual value left in property - ?100,000.00 d) Percentage of property taken - 42% 2] House worth ?350,000 [say in Kent] a) ?100,000 protected b) Cap of ?75,000 c) Residual value left in property - ?275,000.00 d) Percentage of property taken - 21% 3] House worth ?700,000 [say in Dulwich] a) ?100,000 protected b) Cap of ?75,000 c) Residual value left in property - ?625,000.00 d) Percentage of property taken - 10.5% This proposal helps the richest in society - again..! She is really recovering to help her own constituency of conservative well off people. If the cap was worked so the first ?100,000 was totally protected for everyone ... then cap the contribution at (say) 50% of the balance. [amounts to be adjusted annually in line with inflation or average wage rise.] This would be a more fair arrangement. No provision has been proposed for a relative who has been acting as a carer for many years in the house that is also their home. A total ideological policy convenience so the Mayniacs can divvy up reduced taxes to their well off friends. Neither has she explained how the charge on the property would be applied - would it be a charge by the government or would it be a loan from a bank or insurance company guaranteed by the government..? This matters a lot also because a loan from a bank/insurance company or even the local authority would be exposed to interest accruing annually affecting the security of the residual value.

@Cardelia Correction - Top 20% are paid six times more than the bottom 10% - not a pleasant picture of a fair society. Growing inequality has meant that the larger tax burden on the richest reflects their rising incomes. I think fairness would start at a point whereby people are able to pay their way including housing costs from their net earnings. The proportion of total income tax paid by the top 1% rose to 27.5 percent in the 2015-16 tax year from 24.4 percent in 2007-08. The government?s policy of gradually raising the point at which people start paying income tax meant that the share of the adult population paying it fell to 56.2 percent from 65.7 percent. Of total income earners, 56.2% pay income tax - 44% pay no income tax at all; they don't earn enough to pay income tax. The other issue is complex & debatable ad infinitum. However, you get self=promoting groups everywhere - especially supporting each other in the City of London - and they are not so fantastic and can always be easily replaced. None of us is missed for very long when we are gone.

Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship 516 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is an indictment of the low pay policy > > promoted by the tory parties whereby a huge > > phlanx of the population don't even get enough > to > > pay their way - this even applies to nurses, > > police & firemen who provide essential services. > > > If these people earned sufficient basic pay > then > > they would begin to pay tax. > > The starting salary for a registered nurse is > ?21,692 which is well above the ?11,500 personal > income tax allowance. Even if you consider > healthcare assistants as nurses, their starting > salary is ?15,100 so they also pay income tax. > > The starting salary for a police constable is > ?19,383. They pay income tax. > > The starting salary for a trainee firefighter is > ?22,017. They pay income tax. Apologies - I stated that a little lacking in definition - of course they pay tax if they earn over the tax allowance; that doesn't mean that they are being paid a fair amount. The differential between the starting salary for a PC & Fireman & nurse is strange given the importance & stress attached to all these activities. UK governments have had a policy of promoting a group of workers that are in low paid employment & this creates the gaps in overall income tax contributions between different percentiles of the population. Top 20% paid six times more than the bottom 10% - not a pleasant picture of a fair society. > > The richer people and high paid must regard > their > > taxation to be an opportunity cost. If they > > dislike it they can always go elsewhere - their > > jobs will be taken up by plenty of available > > people who will probably do a better job & for > > less. > > If the hypothetical replacements for the rich are > being paid less to do the same job, it stands to > reason that they're going to be paying less tax. > Therefore the country will receive less revenue. > That doesn't seem like a desirable outcome to me. Everybody is eminently replaceable in the economic sense - It will follow that if the replacements are working for less then the services will move to equilibrium in time due to competition and will become cheaper & less of a cost to the economy - ergo a benefit in the economic mix. ..or lets pay everyone lots & lots of dosh so they can pay lashings of more income tax..eh? Great solution... gotta dash...must make the phonecall