UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Vassenor]

#compassionateconservatives

You got the memo Dave is no longer PM?

Does that mean the part gets to make a sudden u-turn and throw away everything that made people vote for them?

[Philjia]

#compassionateconservatives

You got the memo Dave is no longer PM?

So what are they now? SPECTRE?

[Lexten]

You're being hyperbolic. Immensely hyperbolic. Alyakia-level hyperbolic and that's saying. You have an almost McCarthyist fear of so-called SJWs. Like seriously read what you just said - "they purposefully acted in a way so as to reduce health and safety standards below acceptable levels so as to drive the restaurant out of business'.

Anyway, interestingly enough I just happen to know a trade union rep involved in the case. The employers were very much aware of the true status of the illegals - they knew they used false documentation and they knew because of their true status they'd be easy to exploit. When the Home Office became aware of their status, to save their skins they cut a deal to turn them in. No business in this circumstance should be allowed to 'get away with it'; the HR staff should have been fired for allowing this to happen and the company heftily fined. Tomorrow I will be attending the protest because I think the fact that they were allowed to escape the reach of justice is wrong. I don't blame the Home Office for upholding the law, but I find it wrong that the most vulnerable get the firm arm of the law whilst those with money get away with it.

This isn't an one-off. This is commonplace, employers often know the true status of migrants but are happy to hire illegals because they can save costs by treating them like shit and paying crappy wages. They're not going to complain,after all they're illegals. At the end of the day, such a practice shouldn't even be compatible with your ideology, because it deprives either a native born British worker of a job as they wouldn't work in such terrible conditions or will be beaten to it by an illegal worker and if they are hired than the workers there will find it hard to stand up for their own employment rights if there isn't a large enough labour force to be aware of them. So everyone loses. The legal workers, the illegal workers, the Home Office who have pay a company to co-operate with them... the only winner is the unscrupulous company, the biggest villain in the case.

I see a moral equivalence to Osborne 's Google tax deal and this. A corporate predator gets away with it, the British people and HM's Government pay because of a cushty behind-the-scenes deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36910950

It says in the article that Byron Burgers completed the correct right to work checks. And I highly doubt that the board of directors conspired to employ illegal workers so that they could work them to the bone and cackle evilly about it, especially when Eastern European workers can be just as easily exploited. Precisely because of the huge PR fiasco that has just occurred.

If anybody knew about the workers being illegal and exploited them because of it, it probably stopped at the level of a restaurant manager who wanted to meet performance targets.

[Val Halla]

Keep getting ads for the bloody EDL. Thanks, I really needed those.

Also apparently a terror attack is "when, not if" but to me that just seems like the police are finding excuses to get more funding.

[Trumpostan]

#compassionateconservatives

You got the memo Dave is no longer PM?

The second coming of Thatcher?

[Vassenor]

Keep getting ads for the bloody EDL. Thanks, I really needed those.

Also apparently a terror attack is "when, not if" but to me that just seems like the police are finding excuses to get more funding.

But we were told that as soon as we voted Leave all terrorism would end forever.

[Val Halla]

Keep getting ads for the bloody EDL. Thanks, I really needed those.

Also apparently a terror attack is "when, not if" but to me that just seems like the police are finding excuses to get more funding.

But we were told that as soon as we voted Leave all terrorism would end forever.

Nah that's not happening until the "Beards and Names That Sound Different Act" of 2018

[Olerand]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

[Lamadia III]

Theresa May really should work towards getting a general election; currently, the Tories have a 16% lead in the polls, which is big enough for a 100 seat majority, which would massacre the Labour Party. By exploiting the rifts between the radical left, the sensible right & the confused centre in the party, the Prime Minister could easily attain a massive majority, giving her not only an unquestionable mandate to govern, but a government with which she could really make a difference. This could be done on the pretence of wanting to attain public support; fixed term parliaments make calling a general election very hard, however it can be done, and should be if possible. This is a chance to consolidate the Tory revolution, and bring some real change to this country.

[Imperializt Russia]

It hasn't worked for the last forty years, why is it going to work now?
Because you wish hard enough?

I'm being completely serious, you're proposing not changing a drug policy we know is not effective.

I believe it could be very effective if we put enough tactical thought, money & manpower into the operation. As it is, we have been reluctant to do so or have not done so effectively, largely due to police cuts or a sense of 'why bother', needless to say I think the key in this is eradicating the 'poor little thug' mentality and replacing it with some good-old-fashioned law & order policy to get rid of those corrupting our youth whilst helping those who require it.
I think it is also time that the US begins to bomb the drug fields in Central America & the Middle East, in particular in the Latino countries & Afghanistan. This really will destroy a huge amount of the supply; as we work to reduce the demand at home, the poppy fields, the cocaine warehouses, and so on, can be targeted by a pilot miles in the sky. The United States should also encourage the use of the military to wipe out the cartels in Mexico, in order to help eliminate their drug issue, which is far greater than our own. For example, Afghanistan is responsible for 85% of the world heroin market; airstrikes could take out these fields efficiently & quickly, reducing a huge amount of supply.

Okay, I was wrong.

You're making policy known to be a failure somehow worse.
Have we not spent the last four decades spending money by the billion on the drug war? Are you just saying that if we throw enough money at it, eventually it might sort itself out?

That's garbage policymaking.

You're suggesting the US military send warplanes to bomb peasants in fields. This has poor historical connotations.
It was the actual spin of a hoax (or rather, maliciously edited gun camera footage from a real operation) to paint USAF personnel in the light of "killing farmers for fun".

And not even having the justification of "whoever leaked this cut out the bit where they set up a machine gun and hid a missile launcher". Actually going to bomb farmers in fields.

The fuck, Lamadia.

[Imperializt Russia]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

Nigel Farage was UKIP. He's now quit, for realsies, because he got his Brexit.
UKIP is politically dead (and, because of how constituencies work, realistically always was).

[Vassenor]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

Nigel Farage was UKIP. He's now quit, for realsies, because he got his Brexit.
UKIP is politically dead (and, because of how constituencies work, realistically always was).

I think given how stupid Nigel got I don't think the party would've survived a Stay vote anyway.

[Wolfmanne2]

You're being hyperbolic. Immensely hyperbolic. Alyakia-level hyperbolic and that's saying. You have an almost McCarthyist fear of so-called SJWs. Like seriously read what you just said - "they purposefully acted in a way so as to reduce health and safety standards below acceptable levels so as to drive the restaurant out of business'.

Anyway, interestingly enough I just happen to know a trade union rep involved in the case. The employers were very much aware of the true status of the illegals - they knew they used false documentation and they knew because of their true status they'd be easy to exploit. When the Home Office became aware of their status, to save their skins they cut a deal to turn them in. No business in this circumstance should be allowed to 'get away with it'; the HR staff should have been fired for allowing this to happen and the company heftily fined. Tomorrow I will be attending the protest because I think the fact that they were allowed to escape the reach of justice is wrong. I don't blame the Home Office for upholding the law, but I find it wrong that the most vulnerable get the firm arm of the law whilst those with money get away with it.

This isn't an one-off. This is commonplace, employers often know the true status of migrants but are happy to hire illegals because they can save costs by treating them like shit and paying crappy wages. They're not going to complain,after all they're illegals. At the end of the day, such a practice shouldn't even be compatible with your ideology, because it deprives either a native born British worker of a job as they wouldn't work in such terrible conditions or will be beaten to it by an illegal worker and if they are hired than the workers there will find it hard to stand up for their own employment rights if there isn't a large enough labour force to be aware of them. So everyone loses. The legal workers, the illegal workers, the Home Office who have pay a company to co-operate with them... the only winner is the unscrupulous company, the biggest villain in the case.

I see a moral equivalence to Osborne 's Google tax deal and this. A corporate predator gets away with it, the British people and HM's Government pay because of a cushty behind-the-scenes deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36910950

It says in the article that Byron Burgers completed the correct right to work checks. And I highly doubt that the board of directors conspired to employ illegal workers so that they could work them to the bone and cackle evilly about it, especially when Eastern European workers can be just as easily exploited. Precisely because of the huge PR fiasco that has just occurred.

If anybody knew about the workers being illegal and exploited them because of it, it probably stopped at the level of a restaurant manager who wanted to meet performance targets.

Companies do hire illegals because it's cheaper. They have plausible deniability thanks to 'false documentation' and 'correct right to work' checks, but I don't buy it. It's an excuse distanced far from the day-to-day experience. Plus that still leads to the case of incompetence - their HR department who vetted them was incompetent, the company should have been fined and the HR staff given the sack.

[Imperializt Russia]

But how is spending all that money, and ending all those lives better than ending prohibition? In favour of strong regulation?

Because I believe it will destroy the majority of the drugs market, and reduce the side-effects, which include crime in UK cities.

If you can't look at the last four decades, see that what you propose has already been proven wrong, and are still sure that you can make it work, because everyone else was incompetent and you're just great?

Please don't go into politics.

[Olerand]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

Nigel Farage was UKIP. He's now quit, for realsies, because he got his Brexit.
UKIP is politically dead (and, because of how constituencies work, realistically always was).

It is still polling in the (lower) double digits, however. How does it still exist, its raison d'être has been accomplished, who even leads it now?

While general knowledge would hold that most UKIP supporters were Labour voters, I would presume that if (or when) UKIP eventually dissolves with Brexit, they are going to migrate to the Tories, unless if an anti-immigrant post-Brexit party were to emerge?

[Wolfmanne2]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

Tories were always going to become the natural governing party again ever since New Labour was kicked out, which was initially successful in consigning the Tories to electoral oblivion.

You're being hyperbolic. Immensely hyperbolic. Alyakia-level hyperbolic and that's saying. You have an almost McCarthyist fear of so-called SJWs. Like seriously read what you just said - "they purposefully acted in a way so as to reduce health and safety standards below acceptable levels so as to drive the restaurant out of business'.

Anyway, interestingly enough I just happen to know a trade union rep involved in the case. The employers were very much aware of the true status of the illegals - they knew they used false documentation and they knew because of their true status they'd be easy to exploit. When the Home Office became aware of their status, to save their skins they cut a deal to turn them in. No business in this circumstance should be allowed to 'get away with it'; the HR staff should have been fired for allowing this to happen and the company heftily fined. Tomorrow I will be attending the protest because I think the fact that they were allowed to escape the reach of justice is wrong. I don't blame the Home Office for upholding the law, but I find it wrong that the most vulnerable get the firm arm of the law whilst those with money get away with it.

This isn't an one-off. This is commonplace, employers often know the true status of migrants but are happy to hire illegals because they can save costs by treating them like shit and paying crappy wages. They're not going to complain,after all they're illegals. At the end of the day, such a practice shouldn't even be compatible with your ideology, because it deprives either a native born British worker of a job as they wouldn't work in such terrible conditions or will be beaten to it by an illegal worker and if they are hired than the workers there will find it hard to stand up for their own employment rights if there isn't a large enough labour force to be aware of them. So everyone loses. The legal workers, the illegal workers, the Home Office who have pay a company to co-operate with them... the only winner is the unscrupulous company, the biggest villain in the case.

I see a moral equivalence to Osborne 's Google tax deal and this. A corporate predator gets away with it, the British people and HM's Government pay because of a cushty behind-the-scenes deal.

With the google deal they had no obligation to pay anything. So that was money for nothing, basically a PR exercise for the firm.

So I'm guessing you are not a fan of plea bargain type things not that they happen much here.

Come on, you know the country was shortcharged. Other countries secured way more from tax deals, Italy secured €227m in their tax deal with Google.

Anyway, to the point. The reason why this sort of 'plea bargain' occurred was because the Home Office has to be focused upon cracking down the effect rather than the cause. Even if it was through incompetence these people were employed,there is no punishment whatsoever for those that fueled it in the first place to act as a deterrent. It is my view that employers who employ illegal migrants have to be held to account, just as much as the illegal migrants themselves

[Olerand]

So, I see that after Theresa May became PM, the Tories have returned to dominating opinion polls like they did pre-Brexit. With the quasi-collapse of Labour, is Britain coming closer to finding its own "natural governing party", like the Liberals were in Canada or the Social Democrats in Sweden?

What is happening to UKIP, does it still exist, why if it does?

Tories were always going to become the natural governing party again ever since New Labour was kicked out, which was initially successful in consigning the Tories to electoral oblivion.

Outside of Thatcher in the 1980s, the Tories' electoral record was rather tame, and did not suggest it was the natural governing party of the UK. Post-War Britain had reasonable alternations between the Conservative and Labour parties. Why do you think Tory dominance was inevitable?

[Imperializt Russia]

I fail to see how that's better than stopping prohibition, something that has been proven to both generate money for the economy and help do the things your suggesting an expensive, tried-tested-failed, hard-line approach would do?

How can you regulate heroin? How can you regulate cocaine? By monitoring production, I presume; so, let's look at how that would work. Who would make the substances? Independent dealers? The Government? How would they buy it, or make it? Buy the materials needed; who would make those materials, who would make sure they were safe? Buy them from smugglers who operate abroad? Smugglers who work for gangs in Columbia, in Latin America, who use violence & intimation to make them? You would let these substances be smuggled into Britain? Or would they be made here, and if so, how? If so, what on Earth is stopping the gangs from simply carrying on selling cocaine or heroin illegally, but, of course, it will not be illegal, will it? If 'legal' producers have to comply with so much regulation, surely it will be cheaper for street sellers to just hand out their substances cheaper, regardless of how dangerous it is? Who would sell the goods; the corner shop, the local Tesco? How will this reduce drug use; I presume you will offer help & rehabilitation at the same time as 'regulating' these substances. But if we do, surely most people will ignore the need for help, as they have access to the drug which will kill them for free and without the fear of prosecution? How will this work? In comparison, removing the supply, reducing the demand, is a proven economic tactic to eradicate a product, which you seem to think class-A drugs are.

My suggestion, which is rather unique to how the UK does healthcare, is to have the large pharmaceutical companies produce narcotics. They already produce a literal billion over-the-counter drugs, many of which are sometimes abused for a recreational (and sometimes chronic) "high".

There are government guidelines and regulations on how drugs can be produced, materials and other aspects.
The drugs can then be purchased, recreationally, from NHS dispensaries.

The UK has a system that is arguably ready to go for centrally-controlled distribution of recreational drugs.
Clamping down on the dealers after that is easy. The dispensaries, with appropriate prices and taxation (though less "risk" money) probably can't compete with street dealers on price point.
But it offers massive amounts of convenience. The one lesson I think the free market genuinely teaches us is that people pay for convenience. Dealers are dangerous. There's no regulation. You have no reason to trust this person, who might be violent towards you. Who might (and probably does, unless you're purchasing something like cannabis) cut the product he is selling you with literally harmful chemicals.

Dispensaries will cut the userbase dealers have simply by being available. By being safe. By offering a genuine product.
For the rest? You don't need to change much. You're targeting the same people for the same reasons.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nigel Farage was UKIP. He's now quit, for realsies, because he got his Brexit.
UKIP is politically dead (and, because of how constituencies work, realistically always was).

It is still polling in the (lower) double digits, however. How does it still exist, its raison d'être has been accomplished, who even leads it now?

While general knowledge would hold that most UKIP supporters were Labour voters, I would presume that if (or when) UKIP eventually dissolves with Brexit, they are going to migrate to the Tories, unless if an anti-immigrant post-Brexit party were to emerge?

Labour had the highest proportion of its supporters who wished to stay in the EU of any party (the Lib Dems and Greens might have had a slightly higher proportion, but they represent far fewer voters, and the Greens less still). The Tories, bizarrely, have a solid working-class vote these days. Poor social conservatives are a thing (who don't realise or don't care that the Tories make them poor, because they're already poor), or a lot of people my sort of age, who believe stuff like raising the tax allowance from £5000 to £10,000 (now £11,000) before paying income tax is a real help to them.

[Wolfmanne2]

It is still polling in the (lower) double digits, however. How does it still exist, its raison d'être has been accomplished, who even leads it now?

While general knowledge would hold that most UKIP supporters were Labour voters, I would presume that if (or when) UKIP eventually dissolves with Brexit, they are going to migrate to the Tories, unless if an anti-immigrant post-Brexit party were to emerge?

Labour had the highest proportion of its supporters who wished to stay in the EU of any party (the Lib Dems and Greens might have had a slightly higher proportion, but they represent far fewer voters, and the Greens less still). The Tories, bizarrely, have a solid working-class vote these days. Poor social conservatives are a thing (who don't realise or don't care that the Tories make them poor, because they're already poor), or a lot of people my sort of age, who believe stuff like raising the tax allowance from £5000 to £10,000 (now £11,000) before paying income tax is a real help to them.

I think a big appeal of voting Tory at this point at this time is that for all their faults they can actually provide a stable government. Labour is in a complete mess and doesn't even have a policy (genuinely not pointing fingers in this instance). If I wasn't politically educated, was non-partisan and a snap election was held this or next year (where I'd be eligible to vote as my birthday is this September), I'd think about casting my first vote for the Tories. Luckily, politically educated me knows they're pricks.

[Imperializt Russia]

Labour had the highest proportion of its supporters who wished to stay in the EU of any party (the Lib Dems and Greens might have had a slightly higher proportion, but they represent far fewer voters, and the Greens less still). The Tories, bizarrely, have a solid working-class vote these days. Poor social conservatives are a thing (who don't realise or don't care that the Tories make them poor, because they're already poor), or a lot of people my sort of age, who believe stuff like raising the tax allowance from £5000 to £10,000 (now £11,000) before paying income tax is a real help to them.

I think a big appeal of voting Tory at this point at this time is that for all their faults they can actually provide a stable government. Labour is in a complete mess and doesn't even have a policy (genuinely not pointing fingers in this instance). If I wasn't politically educated, was non-partisan and a snap election was held this or next year (where I'd be eligible to vote as my birthday is this September), I'd think about casting my first vote for the Tories. Luckily, politically educated me knows they're pricks.

I'd hardly call "knowing that the Tories are pricks" is "being politically educated".

Knowing to what extent they are (or were, I'm honestly intrigued to see how May's government will change in direction and feel from the Eton's boy's club) is what "politically educated (I would use the word "aware")" is.

I would, however, suggest that "a stable government" over all other issues is a position that only someone with few personal issues would, or could take.

[Wolfmanne2]

Thinking it about it rationally, Theresa May must have three main aims to fulfil in the next three-four years of her premiership before the 2020 general election;
1) To consolidate the Conservative Revolution, by bringing through real social change by cutting welfare, by making the NHS more sustainable in the long-run, increasing the role of business, and shrinking the role of the state in UK society.
2) Put us on the path of economic recovery after the Brexit result. Regardless of a decrease in Sterling value, regardless of the economic shock, she has inherited a very strong treasury from her predecessor, and I am sure she will protect this.
3) Begin renegotiating our position in the EU & on the world stage, to allow us to withdraw from the European Union quickly, efficiently & in a way which benefits the British people the most. After & during this process, consolidating our new place on the international footer has to be a priority, which will include putting some stick about.

1.Interesting how our welfare state has evolved. Give a man to fish and feed him for a day ('dangerous socialism'). Teach a man to fish and feed him for life (New Labour). Pretend you're teaching a man to fish but really you just sent him to work at Poundland to keep his benefits and then sanction him anyway ('compassionate conservatism'). Starve the man and now you don't a hungry mouth ('revolutionary conservatism').
2. Yes, Ed Balls was right, get investing, chop chop.
3. Keep the Single Market thank you.

I think a big appeal of voting Tory at this point at this time is that for all their faults they can actually provide a stable government. Labour is in a complete mess and doesn't even have a policy (genuinely not pointing fingers in this instance). If I wasn't politically educated, was non-partisan and a snap election was held this or next year (where I'd be eligible to vote as my birthday is this September), I'd think about casting my first vote for the Tories. Luckily, politically educated me knows they're pricks.

I'd hardly call "knowing that the Tories are pricks" is "being politically educated".

Knowing to what extent they are (or were, I'm honestly intrigued to see how May's government will change in direction and feel from the Eton's boy's club) is what "politically educated (I would use the word "aware")" is.

I would, however, suggest that "a stable government" over all other issues is a position that only someone with few personal issues would, or could take.

Coupled with the Tory PM not being David Cameron, I think people wanting stability over Labour's mess is a big reason why the polls have shifted towards the Tories. It's a fair reason for a swing voter.

[Lamadia III]

I am suggesting Imperializt Russia, that we protect the interests of the youth of this country using the military, which it is for (or at least, the United States could do this.) I am suggesting intercepting the farms & plantations where these crops are grown, and splattering them with some good incendiary bombs. Setting these fields on fire, destroying the chain, will protect our young, which is what our military is for.
Attack the plantations, burn the crops, shower these smuggling & growing gangs with some bombs. Very effective.

[Olerand]

It is still polling in the (lower) double digits, however. How does it still exist, its raison d'être has been accomplished, who even leads it now?

While general knowledge would hold that most UKIP supporters were Labour voters, I would presume that if (or when) UKIP eventually dissolves with Brexit, they are going to migrate to the Tories, unless if an anti-immigrant post-Brexit party were to emerge?

Labour had the highest proportion of its supporters who wished to stay in the EU of any party (the Lib Dems and Greens might have had a slightly higher proportion, but they represent far fewer voters, and the Greens less still). The Tories, bizarrely, have a solid working-class vote these days. Poor social conservatives are a thing (who don't realise or don't care that the Tories make them poor, because they're already poor), or a lot of people my sort of age, who believe stuff like raising the tax allowance from £5000 to £10,000 (now £11,000) before paying income tax is a real help to them.

I don't believe UKIP supporters migrated there because of social conservatism, no? I thought UKIP was doing exceptionally well siphoning off Labour votes in the (post)industrial north? Outside of the Eurosceptic southeast, that is. I'm sure that Labour supporters now, after having lost Eurosceptic working class voters to UKIP are pro-EU, but prior to UKIP, was that still the case?

I am suggesting Imperializt Russia, that we protect the interests of the youth of this country using the military, which it is for (or at least, the United States could do this.) I am suggesting intercepting the farms & plantations where these crops are grown, and splattering them with some good incendiary bombs. Setting these fields on fire, destroying the chain, will protect our young, which is what our military is for.
Attack the plantations, burn the crops, shower these smuggling & growing gangs with some bombs. Very effective.

You will not find a greater idolater of the State and its rule than I (outside of Stalinist circles, and only for Stalinist States then), but truly, this is a waste of time, money, effort, manpower, prison space and so much more. This is not a battle worth fighting.

[Lamadia III]

But it offers massive amounts of convenience. The one lesson I think the free market genuinely teaches us is that people pay for convenience. Dealers are dangerous. There's no regulation. You have no reason to trust this person, who might be violent towards you. Who might (and probably does, unless you're purchasing something like cannabis) cut the product he is selling you with literally harmful chemicals.

Dispensaries will cut the userbase dealers have simply by being available. By being safe. By offering a genuine product.
For the rest? You don't need to change much. You're targeting the same people for the same reasons.

For some council house single mother addicted to heroin, 'more convenience' is not going to persuade her to pay huge amounts of money for an already inflated drug at an NHS counter. She is going to continue to put herself at risk by going to the back-street dealer because it is cheaper. Most of these people have no reasoning- to assume otherwise if naive.