The UKAR politics thread

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

toom317 wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 12:44 pm
Nice set of figures Iain, but that's only what we got under the formula. How much did the economies of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, contribute to the "UK" economy in 1993?
Lots and it was rather nice of the Scots to let the UK government have all that oil money to, shall we say, not make the best use of. Financially, however, the 3 smaller (in terms of area and population) tend to take out more than they put in.

You only have to look at the latest furlough expectations from Cardiff and Edinburgh - make up their own restrictions with consequent economic damage but expect the UK government to foot the bill. (NOT< NOT< NOT suggesting Boris' gang are above reproach or playing politics either.)
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FarnboroJohn »

iainpeden wrote:
Tue 03 Nov 2020, 9:45 am
Welsh and Scottish independence or you could argue English independence from the less productive parts of the UK.

Whatever, just think of the money the government could throw at SERCO to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke.
Just seen this. NO giving up English territory by rebuilding Hadrian's Wall! The Antonine Wall is the one to work on.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Spiny Norman »

FarnboroJohn wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 5:15 pm
iainpeden wrote:
Tue 03 Nov 2020, 9:45 am
Welsh and Scottish independence or you could argue English independence from the less productive parts of the UK.

Whatever, just think of the money the government could throw at SERCO to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke.
Just seen this. NO giving up English territory by rebuilding Hadrian's Wall! The Antonine Wall is the one to work on.
But why would Scotland give up its territory?

Talking about the Barnett Formula and whatnot, I suppose you could look at the economic histories of Scotland, Wales in particular and say that the deindustrialisation of those countries and subsequent unemployment, associated social and health problems, lack of copmany profits being spent in the areas (have you seen the Victorian architecture in Glasgow?), etc etc might have had a bit of an impact which necessitated an increased spend than say against the whole of England which did not suffer the same. Though, had the north-east of England been as identified as a country then perhaps there would be calls from those in the south of England railing against how much those gobby northeners get from central government.

Unfortunately for Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff, they had no financial centres that could benefit from the financial deregulation” money pit that London provided.

Of course, you could be a cynic and say that much of the "England would be well rid of Wales and Scotland" stems from the right-wing of British politics (supposedly Unionists), but who would be happy to not have those Labour, Plaid Cymru, SNP, etc, MPs in Parliament, so securing them in power for decades.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

I seem to remember that the Act of Union (1701?) came about because the Scottish king had bankrupted the country and needed an English bailout.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
toom317
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 1864
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 11:02 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by toom317 »

iainpeden wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 8:48 pm
I seem to remember that the Act of Union (1701?) came about because the Scottish king had bankrupted the country and needed an English bailout.
The English were more worried about Scotland's close ties with the French.
"Nice pics mate" comments only! No criticism please.

Equipment: Camera, Lens, Goretex Y fronts.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Spiny Norman »

iainpeden wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 8:48 pm
I seem to remember that the Act of Union (1701?) came about because the Scottish king had bankrupted the country and needed an English bailout.
Well you're close, Iain!

Scotland and England had the same monarch since 1603.

It was a queen - Queen Anne - who was ruler in...

...1707 when the Act of Union united politically the two countries.

If you're referring to the Darien Scheme, that's another thread altogether.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

Spiny Norman, thanks for putting me right on that one. I had heard about the Darien scheme but didn’t know the details.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Spiny Norman »

iainpeden wrote:
Tue 10 Nov 2020, 9:19 am
Spiny Norman, thanks for putting me right on that one. I had heard about the Darien scheme but didn’t know the details.
It's a story and a half. Definitely led to the Union. Thousands invested their life's savings which were lost.

It was almost as bad a venture in South America as World Cup 1978.

Zoom
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2016, 11:18 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Zoom »

all of a sudden PMBJ finds himself a small fish in a (rapidly becoming even smaller) pond

Senior Tories today urged Boris Johnson to “quietly drop” controversial parts of his Brexit legislation after they were rejected by the House of Lords.

Last night the Government suffered a heavy defeat when peers voted overwhelmingly to remove clauses from a bill that could undermine the Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU.

They voted 433 to 165 to remove a section of the UK Internal Market Bill that would allow ministers to break international law.

Some 44 Tory rebels voted against the Government, including Theresa May’s ex-chief of staff Gavin Barwell, former chancellor Ken Clarke and former Conservative Party leaders William Hague and Michael Howard.

Peers also voted to remove another clause, allowing ministers to override parts of the agreement relating to Northern Ireland, by 407 votes to 148. Those against included up to 38 Tories. All other controversial provisions were removed without votes.

Lord Barwell told the Standard: “I don’t see any positives that come from those clauses

Zoom
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2016, 11:18 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Zoom »

This is IMO absolutely disgusting and distasteful; not least because those who would normally be at the Cenotaph were attending a service to mark 100 years of the tomb of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey at the time

Before the scheduled events, an Extinction Rebellion activist staged a protest at the Cenotaph in central London.

Private Donald Bell, who served four tours in Northern Ireland, placed a banner in front of the war memorial that read 'Honour Their Sacrifice, Climate Change Means War'.

He also laid a wreath of poppies with the slogan 'Act Now' at the site, saying "unchecked climate change means a return to a world at war". Both the banner and the wreath were later taken down by police.

Boris Johnson's spokesman said their removal was "an operational matter" for officers and condemned the protest as "profoundly disrespectful".

Tomahawk
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:14 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tomahawk »

Zoom wrote:
Wed 11 Nov 2020, 5:17 pm
This is IMO absolutely disgusting and distasteful; not least because those who would normally be at the Cenotaph were attending a service to mark 100 years of the tomb of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey at the time

Before the scheduled events, an Extinction Rebellion activist staged a protest at the Cenotaph in central London.

Private Donald Bell, who served four tours in Northern Ireland, placed a banner in front of the war memorial that read 'Honour Their Sacrifice, Climate Change Means War'.

He also laid a wreath of poppies with the slogan 'Act Now' at the site, saying "unchecked climate change means a return to a world at war". Both the banner and the wreath were later taken down by police.

Boris Johnson's spokesman said their removal was "an operational matter" for officers and condemned the protest as "profoundly disrespectful".
Not sure I see it that way, based on what I have seen in the news, what they did, when they did it and how they did it doesn't tick any of disgusting, distasteful or disrespectful in my opinion.

In addition, The Ministry of Defence identifies climate change and resource use among the highest risks to defence and security so the point they were making is recognized within Whitehall.

Zoom
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2016, 11:18 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Zoom »

disgusting and distasteful because;

1. The dead of WW1 /2 are not responsible in any way for their gripes
2. They desecrated a war memorial (albeit temporarily) at a time of collective national respect and reflection

plus they probably shouldn't have made the journey but that's by the by

I'm not saying I don't agree with many of ER's beliefs but to use the Cenotaph (or indeed any war memorial) and today to make their point is completely inappropriate

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

I hate Extinction Rebellion. They take an issue that I care about, and whilst we should ordinarily be aligned for both wanting climate change to be taken seriously, their stunts are like a red rag to a bull that are the red rags like the Sun, etc.

All they’re doing is putting people off. Their protests are more about them feeling superior than convincing people to take this stuff seriously.

Have any of their protests or grand ideas ever persuaded someone to join their cause? Have they ever provoked the action they want? Have they done anything other than spark outrage?

Bellends.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 1:16 pm
toom317 wrote:
Mon 09 Nov 2020, 12:44 pm
Nice set of figures Iain, but that's only what we got under the formula. How much did the economies of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, contribute to the "UK" economy in 1993?
Lots and it was rather nice of the Scots to let the UK government have all that oil money to, shall we say, not make the best use of. Financially, however, the 3 smaller (in terms of area and population) tend to take out more than they put in.

You only have to look at the latest furlough expectations from Cardiff and Edinburgh - make up their own restrictions with consequent economic damage but expect the UK government to foot the bill. (NOT< NOT< NOT suggesting Boris' gang are above reproach or playing politics either.)
The U.K. Government is just that, though, the U.K. that includes Wales and Scotland. That’s not just English money.

Whilst you’re talking about furlough expectations; the U.K. Government decided not to grant furlough for Welsh lockdown despite it being requested (or Northern England), but brought it back at the drop of a hat the moment England as a whole went into lockdown. Not exactly fair. That’s cut through in Wales - my dad is deliberately disinterested in politics, but he’s fuming about that. Particularly as a friend of his was made redundant.

Wales had all of two working days where it was able to use furlough during its two week lockdown - the same lockdown that was advised by the scientists for England, But Westminster refused. Now Wales is out of lockdown, so the “expectation” or the bill to be footed is cheaper than that of England. Go even further, flip it around; how are Welsh people supposed to feel that Welsh pounds are being spent on a month long furlough in England, when a cheaper, half as long (for fewer people) furlough in Wales was rejected?

There are times when we are England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and there are times when we’re the United Kingdom.

All I’m saying is, it’s not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Also, I’m a bit foggy on this, so I’m happy to be corrected, but Wales doesn’t get anywhere near the amount of financial benefit that Scotland and NI get. I think something to do with the Barnett formula (though since doing a test on devolvement a couple of years ago I haven’t looked at it, so I’m not au fait). So many tropes about Scotland receiving more money than England can’t be accurately translated to Wales.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Spiny Norman »

Tomahawk wrote:
Wed 11 Nov 2020, 6:11 pm
Zoom wrote:
Wed 11 Nov 2020, 5:17 pm
This is IMO absolutely disgusting and distasteful; not least because those who would normally be at the Cenotaph were attending a service to mark 100 years of the tomb of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey at the time

Before the scheduled events, an Extinction Rebellion activist staged a protest at the Cenotaph in central London.

Private Donald Bell, who served four tours in Northern Ireland, placed a banner in front of the war memorial that read 'Honour Their Sacrifice, Climate Change Means War'.

He also laid a wreath of poppies with the slogan 'Act Now' at the site, saying "unchecked climate change means a return to a world at war". Both the banner and the wreath were later taken down by police.

Boris Johnson's spokesman said their removal was "an operational matter" for officers and condemned the protest as "profoundly disrespectful".
Not sure I see it that way, based on what I have seen in the news, what they did, when they did it and how they did it doesn't tick any of disgusting, distasteful or disrespectful in my opinion.

In addition, The Ministry of Defence identifies climate change and resource use among the highest risks to defence and security so the point they were making is recognized within Whitehall.
Also, if he's been in Northern Ireland on four tours, he has more right to be at the Cenotaph than some of the current lot whose experience of military service is attending a OTC Xmas dinner!

I do agree with some of the comments on Extinction Rebellion's antics, but I'm not seeing a lot of other action on something that is quite important to future generations.

vandal
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

Just been reading that PMBJ's Communications Chief Lee Cain has quit. There was talk of him maybe becoming the PM's Chief of Staff.

PMBJ's partner Carrie Symonds had apparently had concerns about Mr Cain.

What has it got to do with her, she's only the PM's partner.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54907188

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

vandal wrote:
Thu 12 Nov 2020, 5:51 pm
Just been reading that PMBJ's Communications Chief Lee Cain has quit. There was talk of him maybe becoming the PM's Chief of Staff.

PMBJ's partner Carrie Symonds had apparently had concerns about Mr Cain.

What has it got to do with her, she's only the PM's partner.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54907188
He's had enough relationships with women to know that if he doesn't do what he's told there's hell to pay!
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

vandal
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

The bigger picture is though that again, an unelected individual (Symonds) may well be having an influence on decisions that should be strictly for Government.

Doctors, Police, Lawyers etc are not going to go home at night & discuss confidential matters with their partners & then allow what they say to have an influence on any decision they make.

PMBJ should be no different. Fine if Carrie is part of the Cabinet, her opinion should, along with who ever else is involved, be considered, but not as PMBJ's partner.

Tomahawk
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:14 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tomahawk »

vandal wrote:
Thu 12 Nov 2020, 6:13 pm
The bigger picture is though that again, an unelected individual (Symonds) may well be having an influence on decisions that should be strictly for Government.

Doctors, Police, Lawyers etc are not going to go home at night & discuss confidential matters with their partners & then allow what they say to have an influence on any decision they make.

PMBJ should be no different. Fine if Carrie is part of the Cabinet, her opinion should, along with who ever else is involved, be considered, but not as PMBJ's partner.
Not sure I get your logic most, if not all, Government decisions involve the advice and/or influence of unelected individuals. We would be in an even bigger mess if everything they did was just handled by Cabinet Ministers.

As for Doctors, Police, Lawyers not going home and discussing matters with partners, really, none of them? Don't think so.

According to the BBC a few minutes ago, Cummings will be gone by Christmas so if Carrie Symonds had anything to do with that she gets my 'vote' :grinning:

vandal
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

I see your point re unelected individuals, was maybe a wrong choice of wording on my part.

Yes, PMBJ has the likes of Cummings around who are unelected but he's a SPAD, that is his job, he's an advisor - Carrie is only his partner. If the PM sought advice from his advisors on the choice of his new Chief of Staff & they had misgivings, then that would be understandable. No point in having advisors if you let your partner influence your decisions.

We all know that Doctors, Lawyers etc are 'not supposed to' discuss confidential matters with their partners. Yes, it might be difficult to go home harbouring some dark secrets, but that comes with the job. I just used that as an example - could you imagine that PMBJ sits over the dinner table discussing matters of National Security?

It should make no difference if Carrie likes the Lee Cain or not, it should be solely down to his professional capabilities. Isn't that why Boris ignored half the UK & some of his own MP's with regard to Cummings & his antics during lockdown? A lot of us wanted him sacked, but the PM stood by him.

Berf
Posts: 642
Joined: Thu 24 Aug 2017, 7:12 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Berf »

..and if Carrie happens to be a communications professional she can have no opinion? Newspapers may say she did not like him but maybe that's from a professional stance as well as quite possibly personal...

User avatar
starbuck
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 9:35 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by starbuck »

vandal wrote:
Fri 13 Nov 2020, 8:07 am
We all know that Doctors, Lawyers etc are 'not supposed to' discuss confidential matters with their partners. Yes, it might be difficult to go home harbouring some dark secrets, but that comes with the job. I just used that as an example - could you imagine that PMBJ sits over the dinner table discussing matters of National Security?
Yes I can, and I think it's unreasonable to expect otherwise. Look at it another way, did you think that Tony would never discuss anything with Cherie or David with Sam Cam?

With respect I think you are looking at this slightly the wrong way. Do you not think it odd that Carrie is even part of this conversation? Apart from having a baby she's never been mentioned before, she doesn't seem to court publicity but now all of a sudden her name is being banded around.

It seems to me someone decided to put her front and centre in all of this to undermine the Prime Minister and make him look weak. There has obviously been a lot of going on behind the scenes in the last week or so and I think Cummings going by Christmas is a lot more telling than any thoughts or opinions Carrie may or may not have.

vandal
Posts: 1361
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

Berf - Yes, I'd considered her professional experience in communications, but she's not engaged in that capacity in No10. She can have an opinion but it should not come down to whether she likes someone or not. That's like saying just because you dislike someone you can't respect them professionally.


Starbuck - Yes, I find it odd that Carrie is all of a sudden part of the conversation, I would not have posted what I did otherwise. Put another way - what is going on behind the scenes at No10, should it involve Carrie Symonds? I've already answered that and given my reasons why. Her communications experience aside, ultimately she is still just the PM's partner.

Addressing confidentiality issues - No, I don't think for one minute the PM should be discussing confidential matters over dinner. Whether he does or not, we don't know, but he shouldn't.

I've still to catch up on the latest goings on in No10 - didn't know about Cummings maybe leaving until I read Tomahawk's post. Not even had a coffee yet.

User avatar
jalfrezi
UKAR Staff
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat 16 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by jalfrezi »

I think Cummings always planned to be out by the end of the year, once the Brexit project was finished it doesn't sound like he had any intentions to stay in the role.

verreli
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun 12 Mar 2017, 6:05 pm
Location: Lake District

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by verreli »

You'll have no doubt heard the phrase "Behind every great man stands a great woman" That may need to be modified for the modern age but, twas ever thus. What you're seeing in the papers is mischief making to throw negative press at Boris. Question is, what are they trying to achieve?

Post Reply