Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Lookyhere

Pinno wrote:

"Summary

In 2015/16, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £9,076. In England, it was £8,816 (3% below the UK average). This compares with:

Scotland: £10,536 (16% above the UK average)
Wales: £9,996 (10% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £10,983 (21% above the UK average)."

(Parliament/ONS)

NI gets more than anyone else, just 'cos they had 'problems' in the past. That stats above don't contain the money poured in by the EU either, so what more do they want?
I think we should do the humane thing and give them full independence - The Republic of Northern Ireland, whether they like it or not. It's just an expensive annex and the sectarianism still continues. They're incapable of forming a cohesive parliament and now the DUP with the backing of the Tories will hold sway. Probably not good for the balance of power in the long run.

Well, they ll want that EU money guaranteed for starters, including farming subsidy, any enquiries into any soldiers conduct halted and no further integration on LGBT and Abortion rights.

What this will mean for the peace process, who knows but as she has shown such amazing judgement so far, nothing could possibly go wrong.

Next time i am asked to pay for some of my kids school books, i ll have to think of those figures above.

pinno

The inquiry into service personnel misconduct is sheer hypocrisy when they released convicted thugs and killers intent on violence under the peace treaty.
They have to let it all go or open the whole thing up.

mamba80

Pinno wrote:

The inquiry into service personnel misconduct is sheer hypocrisy when they released convicted thugs and killers intent on violence under the peace treaty.
They have to let it all go or open the whole thing up.

yep agree BUT we have to keep the republicans on side or risk a return to violence.

we ll never get to the stage of a truth and reconciliation commission (which is the only way that all the killings could be in some way addressed) should the IRA decide that there is no point in pursuing a peace process.

i dont know but i m glad there is no more terrorism and i d not want to risk that returning.

its quite outrageous that the tories are willing to do this but given how they ve governed the country in the last 7 years, no great surprise.

ugo.santalucia

Pinno wrote:

"Summary

In 2015/16, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £9,076. In England, it was £8,816 (3% below the UK average). This compares with:

Scotland: £10,536 (16% above the UK average)
Wales: £9,996 (10% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £10,983 (21% above the UK average)."

(Parliament/ONS)

It's a petty argument and one not worth discussing...

You will find that scarcely populated areas always have a higher spending per head... some infrastructure relate to the size of the country rather than the number of inhabitants... and even schools, you need to have a school, even if only 100 souls live in a very remote area.... of course you wouldn't in England, as you could rely on another school 5 miles down the road

mamba80

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Pinno wrote:

"Summary

In 2015/16, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £9,076. In England, it was £8,816 (3% below the UK average). This compares with:

Scotland: £10,536 (16% above the UK average)
Wales: £9,996 (10% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £10,983 (21% above the UK average)."

(Parliament/ONS)

It's a petty argument and one not worth discussing...

You will find that scarcely populated areas always have a higher spending per head... some infrastructure relate to the size of the country rather than the number of inhabitants... and even schools, you need to have a school, even if only 100 souls live in a very remote area.... of course you wouldn't in England, as you could rely on another school 5 miles down the road

Devon along with the rest of the SW is sparsely populated per sq km and schools are certainly not 5 miles down the road.... it has slightly below UK avg spend per head, this why certain areas have received large EU grants, of course the s/w voted heavily for Brexit and for Teressa May's Conservatism..... which is even more bizzare given she didnt give any assurance the SW rail link would be upgraded or further MOD bases not not closing, during her many visits to the area she promised or said very little.

i guess the standard joke that they are all in-breeds might be true but pssibly more to do with an above avg elderly population.

pinno

Wales is sparsely populated in parts and they get less spending per head.
I do not know the sum total of spending per head in NI if you add the EU funding. It must be exorbitant.
It's rather simplistic to make the comparison between rural and urban regions where the density of people in NI is not sparse by any means compared to say the highlands of Scotland.
Wales has a similar population over a wider area.

At one time, you could get 50% towards the initial costs of setting up a business and huge incentives to build a house. If you sail into Belfast, the Lough is littered with new builds. Maintaining the status quo at one time suited a lot of people.
How come other deprived areas in the UK did not get the same quantity of monies? Because they weren't intent on killing each other? That's my point. Too much time and too many concessions and too much money has been afforded to Northern Ireland. The peace treaty has come at a cost and the cost seems to be a convenient opacity and amnesia on the one hand and the continued investigation into those who served there on the other.
It is high time the protagonists and perpetrators of the violence simply admit to their sins and stop singling out service personnel. Then we could possibly have total reconciliation instead of latent social and political misgivings.
I think it's an excuse for some to perpetuate the past and blame the services for violence when the bulk of that violence was metered out by sectarians.
Some of the atrocities committed (knee capping's, tyre necklaces etc) were on minors and totally unforgivable. Those perpetrators should never have been released.
Whilst I realise there is 'peace' in NI, there are certain things that leave a bitter after taste.

briantrumpet

ugo.santalucia wrote:

You will find that scarcely populated areas always have a higher spending per head... some infrastructure relate to the size of the country rather than the number of inhabitants... and even schools, you need to have a school, even if only 100 souls live in a very remote area.... of course you wouldn't in England, as you could rely on another school 5 miles down the road

Devon (area 2,590 square miles) has about the same school population as a couple of boroughs in London, but gets less per pupil, despite the massively higher costs of delivering the same education.

orraloon

briantrumpet wrote:

Devon (area 2,590 square miles) has about the same school population as a couple of boroughs in London, but gets less per pupil, despite the massively higher costs of delivering the same education.

But hey they voted to Take Back Control so they'll be fine now shurely?

briantrumpet

orraloon wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Devon (area 2,590 square miles) has about the same school population as a couple of boroughs in London, but gets less per pupil, despite the massively higher costs of delivering the same education.

But hey they voted to Take Back Control so they'll be fine now shurely?

Quite.

Devon's demographics are skewed both by the coastal areas being London-on-Sea, and the proportion of people involved in farming, who are not, shall we say, natural Labour voters, and (ironically) not fans of Europe. Despite all that, it's not by any means a wealthy county - average earnings are well below national averages - but that's disguised by all the lovely bits of Devon most people see. But go behind the pretty bits, and there's poverty. If you want to see that x10, go to Cornwall, and walk around St Austell, or Bugle. Grim.

pinno

There was a fire in St Austell model village. Flames could be seen from 3 feet away.






I'll get my coat.

rjsterry

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

i listened to him on r4, in some sense correct but he was laying the blame at JC door, where as its really his and others inability to accept Corbyn as leader, Leslie presumably went along with Milbands change in electoral rules so he should have then accepted the result?
i remember feel so depressed after the Brexit vote only to find Labour then sank into civil war, completely taking the spotlight off the Tories as they imploded, what a golden opportunity to seize the moment and present Labour as a serious alternative? instead the mainstream media portrayed them (correctly) as divided and in chaos.

given brexit and its continued support, i am amazed Labour did so well, i am equally surprised the LibDems have done so badly.
you d have thought that the stance of the 2 main parties, a more centralist one would have done well.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

And still missing the point that if their disarray hadn't put them so far behind in the polls, there wouldn't have been an election.

bompington

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

And still missing the point that if their disarray hadn't put them so far behind in the polls, there wouldn't have been an election.

This is an interesting point.
Maybe we've all completely underestimated Corbyn - all those decades of looking like an unelectable idiot were just part of the master plan...

surrey_commuter

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

And still missing the point that if their disarray hadn't put them so far behind in the polls, there wouldn't have been an election.

This is an interesting point.
Maybe we've all completely underestimated Corbyn - all those decades of looking like an unelectable idiot were just part of the master plan...

It is a stroke of genius that has seen Labour MPs nominating him to crush the left, followed by Tories joining the Labour Party to make him leader and all the time he inches towards power.

It seems amazing that people seem incapable of looking at the USA and drawing parallels

mamba80

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

At least one Labour MP taking a more accurate view of the result..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -open-goal

And still missing the point that if their disarray hadn't put them so far behind in the polls, there wouldn't have been an election.

This is an interesting point.
Maybe we've all completely overestimated May - all those years of looking electable were just part of the master plan... of incompetence and failure

FTFY

pinno

Parallels with the USA?!? Trump is an idiot. Trump appealed to the rednecks and massaged the America can be great ego illusion.
He's an idiot because I think he truly believed his own bullshit and didn't realise how complex the position of POTUS is.
At least you can say that Corbyn's intent is rational, whatever political bent you are from. Corbyn wasn't selling a dream.

If you are such an entrenched Tory that you cannot see why Corbyn appealed to more than was expected. Then that is the blind spot that will lead to what you see as somehow inexplicable and at least this May administration will have to be more accountable than a landslide. That would not have been good for democracy nor the UK.

Let's break down the major May sticking points:
1. Pensions
2. Continued austerity
3. A Brexit plan that on the face of it is not coherent. The Tories can stick to the rhetoric that they are best placed to deliver a Brexit plan but we still really don't know what that plan is and all her bravado is met with contradiction the other side of the channel. It may be that they might be better placed but so far it's all talk.
4. The NHS - If you work for the NHS, you probably feel that your future under the Tories is uncertain. The future is also intrinsically linked with the desperate need for skilled staff from out with the UK and free movement of people/Brexit deal.
5. Had she gone face to face with Corbyn in a live TV debate, I think she would have lost the debate. I'm not sure she would have lost the election but her winning margin would have been much smaller. It was a no win situation - go on TV and lose more popularity than not going on TV. It was obviously a calculated decision. Pi$$ poor one IMHO as the electorate missed an opportunity to see the depth of character of who we were voting for.
6. Repetition. TM repeated herself with catch phrases and rehearsed lines ad nauseum. It was infuriating how she dodged so many questions by repeating the mantras.
7. U turns. Not sticking to her guns. Not being honest in that respect really. They presumed a landslide win and tried to sell certain things in their manifesto on the back of that. As soon as the derision was clear, she back tracked.
8. May never really challenged Labour on Brexit. It speaks volumes as to her Brexit plan and the lack of consensus and direction within her cabinet. Before the Tories jump on that one and say "Oh, you think Corbyn could do it better? [rofl. scoff, rofl]". Well, let's face it: Could it be any worse? It was the Tories who offered a referendum and it was the Tories who lost the referendum and only because of pressure from UKIP or at least the threat of UKIP threatening Tory seats.
So far, all I see is the disparity between the rhetoric out of Brussels and the rhetoric from the Tories. I think the Brussels rhetoric has more weight and accuracy than the May rhetoric. If it's just rhetoric to gain political advantage by May, then it really is gambling with the future direction of the UK and not being honest with the British public. It's a buttering up process whereby, if it all goes wrong, it will be the EU's fault and not her own. It really is crass.

If you are a slightly confused Tory wondering why Corbyn appealed to far more than was expected, then you really are blinkered to the fact that the public did not fully sign up to the repetitive May rhetoric and there were flaws and contradictions in her whole campaign.
Corbyn is a people politician. I do not know who May is beyond the adjective 'bureaucrat'.

surrey_commuter

I do not disagree with much of what you say. I have always been amazed by how many "natural" Labour voters favour the Tories. By that I mean people who would be better off under Labour.

Do they just not believe the Labour promises or are there a lot of aspirers who think they will become natural Tories.

History would suggest they do not believe that a strong economy is the be all and end all.

bendertherobot

Direct debit set up

rick_chasey

briantrumpet wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

You will find that scarcely populated areas always have a higher spending per head... some infrastructure relate to the size of the country rather than the number of inhabitants... and even schools, you need to have a school, even if only 100 souls live in a very remote area.... of course you wouldn't in England, as you could rely on another school 5 miles down the road

Devon (area 2,590 square miles) has about the same school population as a couple of boroughs in London, but gets less per pupil, despite the massively higher costs of delivering the same education.

More broadly however, London subsidies the rest of the UK in terms of gov't take & spend.

So, maybe Londoners should take back control and stop subsidising the rest of the UK.

The rest of the UK is basically at the level of Greece, and London is basically Norway.



Can't take these things in isolation.

rjsterry

Ironic that it is usually Labour that is accused of levelling down. Funding for London schools went up because at one point they were in a state. Now generally they are not.

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

More broadly however, London subsidies the rest of the UK in terms of gov't take & spend.

So, maybe Londoners should take back control and stop subsidising the rest of the UK.

That's uni dimensional.

Firstly, we don't all want to live in the South East. Secondly, we can't all live in the South East.
When the North used to be the industrial power house, now it's no longer needed because London is the bread basket?
I'm sorry we're a such burden on the wonderful tax paying, money making Frockney's.
The demise of British industry is a multi faceted subject. However, would it not be better to have a whole country working with equal investment and equal political emphasis?
The architects of the divide criticise the part that is the wrong side of the divide? Or at least, by default rather than design but the default setting is that industry closed down with no thought and plan of what was going to replace it. Same thing really.
The UK has suffered greatly from short-termism and the democratic structure/process does not lend itself to long term measures for the greater good.

rick_chasey

Not sure you judged the tone of what I was getting at...

Never mind.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

That plan worked then Stevo.

The country is in a right mess now and it's all the tories fault.

But you would expect me to say that.

Frank, I don't know how to break it to you, but Labour lost. JC gave it his best shot by promising free stuff to everyone bar the moderately well off and still came up short

The Lib Dems are still the nowhere men of politics. And the SNP lost over 1/3 of their seats.

And the icing on the Cake is that Labour are now stuck with Corbyn as they will never be able to dislodge him via a normal leader ship challenge Wonder if some of the moderates will have the cojones to split now?

You joined the labour party to help destroy the labour party and make this a one party tory super state. you failed. Indeed labour are now a resurgent party and the tories are in total disarray and thanks to their own self interest (party before nation) this country is in the sh1t.

rick_chasey

Which is the coalition of chaos and which has the strong & stable leadership post election?

Hmm?

mamba80

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

That plan worked then Stevo.

The country is in a right mess now and it's all the tories fault.

But you would expect me to say that.

Frank, I don't know how to break it to you, but Labour lost. JC gave it his best shot by promising free stuff to everyone bar the moderately well off and still came up short

The Lib Dems are still the nowhere men of politics. And the SNP lost over 1/3 of their seats.

And the icing on the Cake is that Labour are now stuck with Corbyn as they will never be able to dislodge him via a normal leader ship challenge Wonder if some of the moderates will have the cojones to split now?

You joined the labour party to help destroy the labour party and make this a one party tory super state. you failed. Indeed labour are now a resurgent party and the tories are in total disarray and thanks to their own self interest (party before nation) this country is in the sh1t.

i dont think the country is in the shitte, though its very chaotic!
in fact so many people voting for change is fantastic, whatever happens to the Tory party, they ll wont be able to pursue their policies of out an out austerity, we ve all had enough of it, Tories have forgotten that their electorate are dying off and the younger voter is p1ssed at being treated as idiots, they ve seen through tory/DC s attempt to get them off the electoral reg (removing the university registration scheme) and have voted... at last!

in a way we owe Stevo a thank you lol

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

That plan worked then Stevo.

The country is in a right mess now and it's all the tories fault.

But you would expect me to say that.

Frank, I don't know how to break it to you, but Labour lost. JC gave it his best shot by promising free stuff to everyone bar the moderately well off and still came up short

The Lib Dems are still the nowhere men of politics. And the SNP lost over 1/3 of their seats.

And the icing on the Cake is that Labour are now stuck with Corbyn as they will never be able to dislodge him via a normal leader ship challenge Wonder if some of the moderates will have the cojones to split now?

You joined the labour party to help destroy the labour party and make this a one party tory super state. you failed. Indeed labour are now a resurgent party and the tories are in total disarray and thanks to their own self interest (party before nation) this country is in the sh1t.

So Frank, who's in Number 10 Downing Street? Hate to tell you this again, but you lost...

rick_chasey

Mate it's a f*cking massive self inflicted shambles and you know it.

It's not a f*cking football team, it's a government, and even you couldn't credibly say that Corbyn would have done a worse job than May has in the last 8 weeks.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mate it's a f*cking massive self inflicted shambles and you know it.

It's not a f*cking football team, it's a government, and even you couldn't credibly say that Corbyn would have done a worse job than May has in the last 8 weeks.

You lost as well...so you have mo right to preach.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

So Frank, who's in Number 10 Downing Street? Hate to tell you this again, but you lost...

We're all losing. May and the Tories own this shambles, but we will all pay the price.