Be Excellent To Each Other

So, he praised europe, criticised it and start a referendum. What do you think?

I think it was a great way of papering over the cracks and getting people talking about something that really doesn't matter at the moment.

Papering over the cracks? Surely it's the most divisive issue in the coalition, even within the Tory party itself.

Most divisive issue in the Tory party definitely...it's the one thing the Tories just can't stop smacking themselves in the face with, in public all the time.

Exactly, get a nice debate going over something that people have strong opinions on, but ultimately won't affect their vote too much come election time, and handily stop them thinking about the state of the country at large.

I always think, 'What would Messrs. Talleyrand and Lord Palmerstone do?'

Stay, obviously.

Trooper, I'd be impressed if Cameron had as much gumption as you give him credit, there. But my lip curled with contempt witnessing him disgrace his office by waffling on about eating at Greggs, and ever since then it has stayed curled.

Damned uncomfortable, what.

He's a reprehensible arsehole is what I think. This is, in part, campaigning for the next general election, on a subject that British people are too often knee-jerk reactionaries to. "I just read in the newspaper that the EU says we can no longer have FISH AND CHIPS, the FUCKING BASTARDS!" And so on. Once again, Cameron ducked all the important questions on this matter. He's certainly a good politician in the Yes Minster sense—I'll give him that. If he quits politics, he should become a magician, what with his ability to distract.

The reality: the UK would be screwed if it left the EU. The yanks would think "nuts to them, then", we'd need all kinds of trade negotiations, which would probably leave us in a worse state than we're in now. Arguing we could be Norway ignores the pesky facts that 1) Norway's politicians desperately want to be in the EU, largely because they spend lots of money related to the EU but have zero say in how it runs, and 2) Norway is more socialist than a Tory Cabinet member's worst nightmare. It's very telling that the things Cameron's seemingly most pissed off about are banking regulation and work directives that protect workers. Oh, and there's that nasty Human Rights Act, which Conservatives seem to hate, but can't say which bits they'd repeal, given the chance.

I very much hope if we do get to the point where the Tories win in 2015 and we have a referendum in 2017 that inertia grips the nation—the 'better the devil you know' that derailed AV and will probably cost the SNP victory in Scotland. The opposite just doesn't bear thinking about. (And what of all the—often fairly affluent—Brits living abroad, leaching off the likes of the Spanish? I bet it'd come as a shock to them if the UK left the EU and the Spanish said: "Right then, get a visa or piss off. Oh, and in order to live here, you now have to satisfy this massive list of requirements.)

Well Palmerstone would send in the gun boats...and let Johnny Foreigner know that they'd better just get on with towing John Bull's line and they'd better be quick about it.

...But thanks to UKIP, it's not like they've got a choice, politically. It's unfortunate, but then the British electorate are a pain in the arse. Gee, thanks for 13 years of Labour etc.

Besides, much as I think we should certainly stay within the EU, as indeed Cameron does also, it's not as though there's any sensible argument to suggest that either:

(a) It cannot be reformed to the benefit of the UK (and indeed the EU itself); if Cameron is somehow able to extract such reform, kudos to him;

(b) The accelerated agenda of full political and monetary unification, in response to the effective collapse and failure of the Euro, is in any way in British interests (and therefore it should be avoided at all costs *without* undue marginalisation).

Certainly, Cameron's words have generally been well received by business - the CBI et al.

Btw, I see unemployment has again fallen (including a significant drop in the long term unemployed, nice one IDS); the number of jobs created within the economy is at an all time high, part time jobs have fallen but full time jobs increased far more greatly etc. Compare these trends with most Eurozone countries where unemployment has been rising for years now unabated, including even major powers such as France. Big difference, I assure you - which begs the question why, of course.

So they're doing something right; the harsh economic decisions of two years ago are starting, finally, to bear fruit. The mighty Private Sector has awoken from its Labour-induced coma; Balls & Co. are going to have a much tougher time justifying their tax 'n spend-like-crazy economic strategy in the second half of the life of this administration, as compared to the first.

A very long way to go of course, but thank God I say. The *huge* mess that was bequeathed to this government is demonstrably slowly being cleared up. The FTSE is in fine fettle also; the value of British companies is also very high now. The confidence of newly wised-up, post Armageddon investors/the market in British firms is undoubtedly a good economic omen and a vote of confidence of sorts.

--- Interim School Report ---

B
"Good try"

Really? I'd say there are quite a few floating voters that the Tories could pick up, but if they're genuinely scared about losing people to UKIP, what happens next? Do British Conservatives watch as the party ends up with its extremist tail wagging the dog, like the Tea Party managed to do with the GoP in the US? There's undoubtedly a spoiler on the 'right' now as well as the 'left' (in as much as the Libs and Lab are left), but I've seen few statistics that suggest it'll make a great deal of difference in a general election. UKIP's also still extremely unlikely to win a single seat, due to FPTP.


But he and the party remain (and have always been) cagey about precisely what reform is required, bar letting banks opt out of regulation, dropping protection for workers, and binning that Human Rights Act. If he said, "right, here's what we need to change—let's start a dialogue", great. Instead, he's blundering about, waving a gun around; and it's not really a threat for the EU, because the gun's going to be used to blow Britain's head off.


Which, as countless commentators in Europe have pointed out, will require negotiation anyway, which the UK could in theory get wins from, if Cameron wasn't blundering about being a git. (Compare to Major, who charmed people and ended up taking home a reasonable haul of wins.)


Just don't be disabled. Or sick. Or unemployed for any stretch of time. Or say "no" to the government when it forces you to work in Poundland for nothing rather than as an intern at a gallery that could have propelled you into a life-long career. Preferably: also own a big company and be friends with a very senior Conservative Party member. If you're very lucky, Gove might give you a school to run that's been forced to turn into an academy against the wishes of everyone apart from Gove. Yay!

As for my report:

C-
"Must try harder—especially to not be total shits to anyone who's already not faring particularly well in life. Also, please stop mucking about with education—your ideas are outdated."

(I've still got an unopened letter from Gove—or one of his underlings—on my desk, responding to my missive to my MP about the EBacc. I shudder to think what's inside. Not sure I want to go all HULK SMASH though, so I'm not opening it right now.)

Something that doesn't add up for me. The economy is in the dulldrums still, recession is biting etc... yet the FTSE 100 is almost as high as it has ever been, it's certainly at the levels it was in the past two boom periods. Where has all that (created) money gone?

Same place it vanished from in 2007.

Sure, but every other time, that creation of money has come on the back of a recovered economy, with people borrowing and spending, house prices raising, high street booming etc...
Just seems weird where that company value rise has come from? Is it purely down to the extremely low interest rate, I can't think of anything else that is that different.

Me, mostly.

2008-2012 Mali A wasn't economically active. 2012 onwards, maliA is active and the economy improves. You're welcome.

Seriously, though, that is a pretty good question. How tricky is it to get a mortgage at present?

Recovering but still quite tricky, as I understand it.

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/15029/inv ... -2013.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... e-for-some

You're even more of a deranged, deluded, clueless, shit-spouting cunt than even I previously believed. What a fucking laughably out of touch babbling fuckstain.

Charming!

Still, you're entitled to your opinion as far as I'm concerned.

And you can keep on masturbating about all the 10,000 disabled your bum chum idol IDS has killed via ATOS.

Abuse and rudeness is always so much easier than a coherent and well argued reply.

For goodness' sake. Either you're deluding yourself into thinking you're somehow 'adding to discussion' here, or you're just an idiot. How about you don't bother, eh?

I largely agree with what you've said bar the last couple of sentences. UKIP are riding high in the opinion polls; their popularity is unprecedented. Given that their demographic is almost exclusively from the moderate to hard Right, they uniquely and exclusively damage the Tory vote.

I agree it's always unfortunate when naked self interest and self preservation gets in the way of actual political process and policymaking, but to be fair also, Cameron has always been a Eurosceptic, has he not?



Well, we'll await the detail I guess, but I don't think it's very fair to imply he's after an opt-out of bank regulation per se; only the EU-derived version of it which, if I understand correctly, is biased very much against the City of London and would likely undermine it. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed that the way he's handling it - high profile, confrontational grandstanding - isn't the best. But politically, what else is he to do, in the face of the very real UKIP threat? He needs to cut off their momentum and quickly too, and thus whatever he does do has to be highly visible. Diplomatic working behind the scenes therefore would not work in this (voter) respect, at least not in the short term?



I don't know anyone who takes any pleasure from the suffering of the unemployed, or the sick, or other disadvantaged groups - but surely these are very largely a function of austerity/bank-induced recession anyway, hardly the sole preserve of the UK itself, let alone the relatively recently installed UK government? (Although, given our previous huge, disproportionate and non-diverse reliance on the financial sector under Labour in particular, so our suffering now, as a country, is also disproportionate). It's simplistic, IMO, to heap blame for this on the Tories who have been in (joint) power for 2 years. It was never, ever going to be a picnic and there ARE long term structural issues which DO need to be sorted out as regards the Welfare State, pensions and the high numbers of non-working people/the long term unemployed. Maybe they're not getting it right, but they're having a go and something needs to be done. Money is in extremely short supply; room for manoevre is similarly limited. Labour had 13 good, rich years to tackle these issues and they manifestly funked it, that's a fact.

Seriously guys, I'm the first to come out with 'robust' statements when I disagree with someone or something (though I like to think I don't go that far lol). So as far as I'm concerned, although I am saddened by it (genuinely), HoE can let off steam in my direction if that's how he feels, from my side anyway.

That they're riding high in the opinion polls doesn't count for much though. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats secured almost a quarter of the votes but LOST seats. Do we really think UKIP has any chance whatsoever of getting any presence in the Commons, even if it somehow manages to secure 10% of the vote? Perhaps at the most, it might get a couple of seats, but I imagine the majority of Conservatives will stick with the devil they know, because it'll be more likely to guarantee seats, rather than switching to a party that will, I think as times moves on, be shown to be a bunch of crazies. (For a quick sanity check, here's the 2010 graphic I drew up, showcasing the massive gulf between what we voted for and what we got.)


Yes, but my question is how the Tories should respond to that. Either they try to appease the nutcase contingent, in which case they potentially follow the GoP into disaster, or they think "nuts to them", chalk up some likely loses and try to remain a party that at least understands the idea of moderation.


Be a grown up? Work with our allies rather than threatening them? He's coming across like a petulant brat while the rest of Europe is trying hard to sort itself out. He also appears to have ignored the fact he's scaring the shit out of those strong allies we do have (notably the Irish and many Scandinavian countries), in order to poke one in the eye of the French and Germans (who, if the Brits were savvier, would also be a rock-solid ally) and to reassure people who read the Daily Mail that, gosh, we won't be forced to straighten our bananas. It's ludicrous.

(Of course, perhaps his long game really is to go it alone. I hope that's not the case or he's madder than a bag of crazed squirrels.)


Which would be fine if the government wasn't gung-ho about privatisation and allowing the likes of Atos to screw up assessments, leading to a shocking number of suicides. I don't doubt Labour went overboard when it does to the public sector, but good grief is this government tearing down the walls, in an orgy of idealism.

As an additional note, I also find it disgusting and distasteful that Cameron and co. somehow have a taste for direct democracy when it comes to the EU, but essentially told the entire country to get fucked when it came to health and education reform, the former of which affects everyone and the latter of which is going to seriously mess up many of the industries in which the UK's doing very well in, not least the creative sector. (EDIT: one might also argue "yes, but it's all terribly complicated, and that's why we elect people", in which case, the idea of a vote on the EU makes even less sense. My guess: Cameron thinks it's win-win. If it's an IN, he can shut up the naysayers in his party and kill UKIP. If it's an OUT, he can make lots of exciting speeches about the UK being amazing, shore up the hardliners in the party, and then, presumably, run like hell away from the Commons and into some corporate job overseas.)

A referendum is a terrible idea. The economics of the EU is an expert level subject. I'm not an expert, please don't ask me. I can't even begin to study it on my own in the time required, and hearing the 'facts' about it from politicians is even worse than me just making them up. Worse, I think, is that lots of other people in the UK definitely aren't experts but they don't care, they feel they have an 'opinion' on the matter. That opinion is usually of the form "I hate France" or "Brussels are forcing me to rename my chorley cakes, fuck 'em" or something and so they're all bound to vote "yes" to leaving the EU, which is probably wrong, but I honestly have no idea.

Aren't there graphs and things to say exactly how much we trade with the EU per year?

It's more half our trade. Of course, the pro-leaving crowd seem to think that won't change in the slightest if we left, and that we'd even be better off, by not being bound by various treaties. They are, more than likely, off their fucking rockers.

I'm happy with the single market and the ability to move goods and people across most of the continent without hindrance. That, and the Schengen argreement, are the finest achievements of the EU. I also think that the existence of an organisation where big issues affecting all the continent can be settled and used in diplomacy is handy - things like the open skies agreement with the US or major trade deals are probably easier as one of 27 than by ourselves.

I don't like the Common Agricultural Policy, the way decisions are made behind closed doors, the general sense of corruption that pervades its institutions, the general lack of accountability to anyone of any officeholder, the inpenetrability of the treaties, or the idea that a trade area needs the trappings of a country.

So, I really don't know how I'd vote in an in/out referendum.

Of course, anyone calling themselves 'President of Europe' deserves all the lampooning, custard pie throwing, and ridicule we can muster.

The EU and the EEC are wildly different things, of course. Not that the speech made any acknowledgement of that.

Or they could make large foreign companies pay their taxes and put billions into the markets, before cutting essential services that are proven to save money in the long term. They could also, instead of providing Tesco with free labour, insist that they offer to any existing staff that want them sufficient hours to achieve economic independence instead of offering thirty part time jobs instead of ten full time ones.

It doesn't matter anyway, Labour are in next. We'd e better served lobbying them hard to ensure they know what is expected of them when they scrape in.

I agree with Pod. He Pood.

Which part of the EU/EEC means you don't need a visa to go and work in Germany, and vice versa? I'm fairly certain the company I work couldn't exist without the foreign workers, as the UK applicants are to thick to do the job. (or maybe they don't pay enough )

As is the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

Has anyone ever been to Europe? It's nice! We should be their friends.

Thought I could smell something

I've written a blog about this which I'll look on again in the morning but the key thing is...

UKIPs main complaint is that the EU have sovereignty over the UK Parliament. Yet such is their desire to see the UK Parliament have control over the affairs of the country that they have forced a referendum which bypasses a Parliament that they can't get a single person elected to despite that the sovereignty of that Parliament being the whole reason for their existence.

A bigger bunch of hypocritical cunts you couldn't find, even if you looked in Downing St.

Then again, Cameron is arguing for breaking away from Brussels, and together being better when it comes to Scotland, so the Hypocrite of the Decade trophy is still up for grabs.

Going forward.

In fairness, those rates are slowing, looking at those graphs*. it's sorta like turning an oil tanker.


*I stuck a credit card against the curve and noted the white space. V. scientific.

This! Fuck me, I'm sick of the country being blackmailed by these cunts. 'Oi! Multinational! Pay your fucking taxes!' 'No! Because JOBS! Also TRICKLE DOWN' 'well Multinational, you've convinced me'

I'd be all like 'Seriously, fuck your shitty 16 hour jobs that the taxpayer ends up topping up, and your employees pay very little tax on, I'd rather take the 5 billion quid, even if you make good on your obvious bluff of sacking all your employees, I'd happily pay that 5 bill out in unemployment benefits. Because that shit gets spent! It goes back into the economy! The only trickling down is your piss trickling down our faces while you keep telling us its raining.'

I remember our old history teacher telling us in 1993 that the economy took so long to adjust that any decision made now (i.e 1993) would only actually benefit the next government who'd the claim the credit. He got that spot on.

THANK FUCK THE TORIES ARE BACK IN!

UK GDP: Economy shrank at end of 2012

Osborne's economic strategy has failed.

UK heads for triple dip as GDP contracts 0.3pc

Dave's Davos Dinner: PM and Chancellor (and best of enemies, Boris) enjoy 'cosy' Swiss restaurant as Britain heads towards a triple-dip recession

Yeah, but this is just bullshit mate, frankly. Here's what even you said about Labour the other day:



So to paraphrase, "Labour were grate except for the PM being a warmongering, lying piece of shit who should be in the Hague and their Chancellor - in charge of the economy and regulation of the banks - was 'fucking useless'(TM), to coin a phrase"

Sorry mate, but I did laugh loud and long at that one. With 'praise' like that, who needs critics? You're bang on, too.

I want to answer the more serious, considered posters here when I've more time over the weekend, but couldn't resist rebutting this nonsense. Watching Question Time last night (sure you'd have seen it as well), the sheer gall of the Labour bod on there, criticizing defence cuts when his own party presided over £37,000,000,000 worth of FAILED defence contracts, from useless aircraft carriers which could not have airplanes landing on them, to jet fighters that didn't work - with NO consequences for anyone involved at all (that's the great public sector for you, eh, as efficacious and accountable as ever)... yeah, like that "black hole" of WASTE would've paid for our hapless soldiers being made redundant. Cheeky twat; it's nearly as bad as the preceding Labour lecture over EU/handover of UK powers by Brown "sleepwalking" into one treaty or other, after a good lunch, with no parliamentary scrutiny or input at all. Or the other week when Andy Burnham tried to castigate the Tories for lowering the 50% income tax band to 45%, until David Dimbleby himself had to point out that actually, Labour only upped the 40% top rate to 50% in the last 10 days of their 13 year administration (lulz). Same old story eh. Has there ever been a more insincere, vacuous, vapid and conviction-free political party than Labour?

I really don't know what people like you expect? The economy was fucking flattened. Seriously, where did you think we'd be after 2 years? Milk and honey, beers all round? Yes, the economy is flat - but that's a darn sight better than it could've been, and far better than most of (Socially Democratic) Europe, which should tell you something. We're borrowing at 2%, not 5% or more, thanks to the Coalition. Unemployment is dropping like a stone. The private sector is knuckling under; there have never been a higher number of jobs created by this economy - REAL jobs, not pretend ones in the public sector. Long term unemployment in particular has shown a significant drop; part time jobs have fallen in favour of full time jobs. Crime rates are at an all time low, too, as are strikes (despite the efforts of the 'usual suspects' - teachers and the rail unions). The FTSE is in great shape; British companies are valued highly. Car exports are on the rise. The welfare reform nettle has finally been grasped.

Of course there is much to do, of course there is much room for improvement, of course they haven't done everything right. But I'm sorry, it is UNQUESTIONABLY the case that we'd all be a fuck sight worse than we are now, if that wide-eyed tosser who very largely got us into this mess in the first place was in charge of the economy. "Thank fuck" indeed.

Yes Raidy, but you appear to be forgetting the global financial meltdown, which wasn't of Labour's doing and by all accounts they handled pretty well.

They failed utterly on regulating the banks but all they did there was continue the good work of Maggie and Major, if you think the Tories would have taken a tougher line on bank regulation than Labour then you're deluded.

Brown had some good socialist instincts, but he and the entire New Labour project was far too timid and far too much in the thrall of big business, but the good stuff they achieved should not be forgotten.

None of the political parties has the gumption to take on the banks (for it is they who really rule the world), but since the banks basically run governments, that's no surprise I guess.

What I'm saying is, all governments run along similar lines when it comes to money, (i.e. they don't control global finance and can't control boom and bust, despite Brown deciding that he could), the only real difference is how much of a redistributive instinct they have.

On that score, Labour wins.

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions

The unemployment figures aren't falling because everyone on the work programme who is shelf stacking in Tesco for fuck all are counted as 'employed'.

Honest.

The problem with the whole austerity thing. If the private sector isn't spending, and individual people aren't spending, and the government isn't spending, how the fuck are we ever going to get out of the recession?

By forcing unemployed people to work for free and kicking the disabled into the gutter.

Oh yes and massively enriching our friends in the private health sector at the expense of the entire UK population whilst laughing over pizza in Davos.

Thank God! The corner is turned!

And shutting the NHS stuff that does work to plough more money at the bits that don't, such as the Lewisham Hospital fiasco, which will see a huge protest this weekend and either a climb down by the government or an admission that their own criteria were simply lies.

Of course, either way, the PFI cronies have made an absolute fortune, taking hundreds of millions of pounds out of the system and making the rich even richer, with no possible downside if they fucked up (which a lot of them did).

Still! Woo! Private companies FTW!

Yeah, who did do that again? I know the only way you face facts is if it was painted on a three hundred foot high billboard outside your front window but:

Public sector debt in 2007 was less than it was in 1997. Public sector borrowing was less in 2007 than it was in 1997 and the majority of that borrowing was investment, not the day to day running of the public sector.

THEN THE BANKS EXPLODED AND WE HAD TO BAIL THEM OUT.

It wasn't the fucking public sector, it wasn't Bob Crowe and his band of merry men, it was Bob Diamond, Fred Goodwin and a few people in suits lighting a huge taxpayer funded bonfire.

Why do they get such an easy ride from you? You are outraged at stories of public sector profligacy straight out of a Daily Mail wet dream, but when it comes to the absolute shitstorm that they caused worldwide, let along the widespread fraud such as the fixing of LIBOR you sit and go "Cuh. Capitalism, eh?" RBS are about to be fined £500m and we, the taxpayer, are going to have to fucking pay it.



Parts of Stockport are running at TWENTY NINE PERCENT unemployment. Walk through Chester. That is an affulent town with a steady supply of tourists. The centre is dying. The Rows are about a third empty. When I started working there about six months ago, the Grosvenor Shopping Centre had two empty shops. Now there are seven and the Clarks goes next week. And these aren't Jessops, Comet, HMV or any of the big casualties that we see in the rest of town.



Apart from those pesky riots?



Which ones?



Oh, so I imagined Honda laying off 800 people the other week.



Yes. So explain to me how 2.5 million people can fill 400,000 jobs? Explain to me how 2.1 million people are "scroungers" and "shirkers"? I bet you would kill for 99.3% accuracy across a budget that runs into the tens of billions.

To go back to RBS for a moment. Those welfare "reforms" (basically, if you are poor, jobless or disabled then the Government will give you their very best "fuck you") are projected to save £10bn by 2016. So, just over £3bn a year.

The taxpayer pumped £45bn into RBS alone. £20bn into Lloyds. The taxpayer committed £1.1 TRILLION pounds to bailing out the financial services sector. Six and a half times the entire welfare budget. By March 2011, that was down to a mere £460bn, so 3 times the entire welfare budget. Woo fucking hoo. And those £3bn in welfare savings wont cover the £4-5bn in interest costs for the bailout.



I'll take Gordon Brown over Osborne when it comes to sorting the economy out any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Osborne is smashing the State and he doesn't give a flying fuck what happens to the economy. He has spent and will spend his entire life insulated from the real world and the consequences of his actions. A man who went on television and told people how to avoid tax.

Brown made mistakes, absolutely. But Jesus fucking Christ, he knew when to change tack. As we head into a triple-dip recession, with the entire fucking IMF screaming at Osborne to stop cutting like Freddie Kreuger in a room full of teenagers, you think he is doing a better job than Brown? Really? Honestly?

I like angry fact-loaded Plissken.

I'm amused Hamface still trots out with the headline figure since even his fucking employment minister has commented on the flawed statistics.

As something that did the rounds on Twitter, a girl applied for and was rejected from jobs at Tesco five times. Then was sent on workfare. At Tesco.