Off Topic Politics Thread

You were probably being sarcastic I guess what with so many SNP in the house but here goes. You can find out how your MP voted on anything. Sometimes my past MP (one of Blair's babes) was in the local rag championing some issue locally yet voted totally differently in the house. She got booted out in 2010:

Ahmed-Sheikh, Ms Tasmina (The one that failed to win as a Tory so she switched to SNP. Was on This Week.......err this week)
Arkless, Richard
Bardell, Hannah
Black, Ms Mhairi
Blackford, Ian
Blackman, Kirsty
Boswell, Philip
Brock, Deidre
Brown, Alan
Cameron, Dr Lisa
Chapman, Douglas
Cherry, Joanna
Cowan, Ronnie
Crawley, Angela
Day, Martyn
Docherty, Martin John
Donaldson, Stuart Blair
Ferrier, Margaret
Gethins, Stephen
Gibson, Patricia
Grady, Patrick
Grant, Peter
Gray, Neil
Hendry, Drew
Hosie, Stewart
Kerevan, George
Kerr, Calum
Law, Chris
Mc Nally, John
McCaig, Callum
McDonald, Stewart
McDonald, Stuart C.
McGarry, Natalie
McLaughlin, Anne
Monaghan, Carol
Monaghan, Dr Paul
Mullin, Roger
Newlands, Gavin
Nicolson, John
O'Hara, Brendan
Oswald, Kirsten
Paterson, Steven
Robertson, Angus
Salmond, rh Alex
Sheppard, Tommy
Stephens, Chris
Thewliss, Alison
Thomson, Michelle
Weir, Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitford, Dr Philippa
Wilson, Corri
Wishart, Pete

 

Here's that Spain article. If it stops you reading it all then open it in an incognito window in chrome or private window in opera or whatevre the option is in firefox etc and it will forget you've been on the Speccie site before. Speccie lets you read 6 articles a month before it starts cutting them short. Cookies or cache or something that icognito and private window ignore. I don't subscribe.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/will-spains-election-finally-end-countrys-power-vacuum/

 

The "back of the queue" it seems wasn't as far away as it appeared:

https://heatst.com/uk/us-uk-trade-bill-in-congress-just-one-week-after-brexit-vote/

 

Yeah that's the only thing I've heard people complain about with him. I always thought his time as PM was the best this country had seen. But yeah the Iraq war and 2008 soon put that to the back of people's minds.

 

My dislike for Blair grew as in his time less and less accountability for mistakes, lies and misdemeanors became the norm.

Phrases like "let's draw a line and move on", "I don't recognise those figures" and "It is what it is" to me ARE Tony Blair and his spin merchants.

So many have complained about the lack of information and the excess of hyperbolic rants over the last few weeks, the seeds were sown by a Prime Minister with personality and charisma but little integrity. We don't expect politicians to be honest or held to account anymore.

 

Iraq is the big thing that will be remembered but there is also:

PFI where the NHS trusts have bordered bankruptcy while the investors that put up the money cream huge profits from these loans. PFI has also been used in Education, local government, Defence, Transport and Prisons. It is effectively privatisation via the back door where private firms put up the money with high returns though not value for money. What will happen when interest rates eventually go up one day on these 30-35 year loans? Even when Blair was in power he was still taunting the Tories about wanting to privatise the NHS while he was effectively doing it himself.

These aren't low rate loans, they are like living your life on credit cards. They are twice as expensive as government funded projects. Blair, Brown, Balls, Milliband(s) all proclaimed the number of new hospitals, the investment they made into state structure but at what cost this borrowing? They could have borrowed that money through conventional government avenues rather than cost us twice as much. National debt anyone? That isn't something that just happened. John Major started a few but they went rampant under Blair.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournh...-should-know-about-private-finance-initiative

Public sector cuts.
Much maligned for cutting the budgets and public sector has been the Cameron/Clegg coalition but it did not cut anywhere near as many public sector jobs as the Blair/Brown era where 100,000 public sector jobs where suddenly salaries of external labour supply that would have been in the state boomed. Market value? Maybe but if you are paying x for someone to do a job in house and then you get rid of that in house position and pay external xx instead that isn't great for the country. Outsourcing is a superb idea IF it is cost effective. It doesn't make sense to increase the costs by outsourcing.

Care homes privatised, Air traffic control privatised. Reading Private Eye articles from 2001 onward will see more and more questioning and reporting of back room deals with Corporates.

While Blair stated he wanted to eradicate poverty completely his policies actually increased poverty (although of course I question what people call poverty and how you would calculate exactly who qualifies to be classed as "in poverty".) There was a small fall in poverty over the Blair years for working age adults "with Children" and you can put that down to child related in and out of work benefits such as child tax credits while working age adults without children "relative poverty" has risen.

Now I do question the way they calculate this poverty because it is calculated as any household with an income of 60% or less of the median average and of course with the rise of the median average where more people have been insulated from the hardships of those at the bottom than ever before that a lot of those included are not actually in poverty. I am classed in the most deprived demographic. The absolute bottom of the rung yet I live much better life now that I did when my wife and I were both working with no children. We weren't classed as in poverty then but we are now. An oxymoron of sorts but the difference is credit. We now have no credit other than monthly bills. No finances at all, no loans, no credit cards. That makes a huge difference in terms of available spending money even though our income is much less "in real terms" than it was before we had children and when we both worked.

Blair's first 3 or 4 were seen as highly successful, the deficit was reducing the economy was booming everything was rosy but from then on things went downhill and the consequence of that first term started to show. Far from trying to correct anything they ploughed on reaching the point that when the world went crash in 2007 all those consequences left us in a position where we might never actually recover enough to sort out those problems.

If you look at the achievements of more hospitals more this more that then yes you will see it as a success but if you look at the consequences of those achievements then it is enough to make people hate the man.

Blair is hated more by his own side, the working classes, typical Labour voters than he is by Tories because a lot of what he did is developed from Thatcherism.

Most of the hatred comes from the constant talk attacking Tory policy while in reality they were even worse than the Tories because they did Tory policy on the sly, through the back door while pretending they were nothing like the Tories.

Nasty Tories look after the rich and don't care about the poor. Well where did all that money go (and is still going?) into the hands of the poor from New Labour policies that we are signed up to, but hey ho. We've got new hospitals that must be great because like Wembley (I know an FA thing not government) they cost a crazy amount more than they should have.

There is lots lots more but like I say to go through all the policies and all the Blairite hatred you would have to get into Yvette Cooper and her WCA which she introduced yet people are IDS and Crabbe's back. She introduced that. Like Andy "chameleon" Burnham who oversaw all the Mid staffs scandal as a Blairite and when Blair started to be hated started adopting Left policies because he thought he might have a chance at leadership. Even in the last leadership election Burnham veered heavily over to the left, supporting limiting the freedom of movement and many other things he thought could get hi that old Labour vote.

That is why Blair and the Blairites along with a good handful of "Brownites" are hated within Labour's corridors, membership and demographic voters.

Brown and his "prudence" and "no more boom and bust" when all the time they had set the country up for the biggest fall ever hoping the housing boom would paper over the cracks and that the banks would hide it all.

EDIT: remember on the news earlier this year those schools that are having to have their walls rebuilt because they are not structurally safe? They were PFI funded schools. Overpaying for their building while the construction companies didn't even build them properly.

It often takes time for the effects (good or bad) of what one government does to become apparent and where Blair oversaw the good years afforded by the Major government the coalition oversaw the bad years caused by the Blair/Brown government.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...umbling-scotland-tax-avoiding-governing-class

 

please log in to view this image

 

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

Reproduced in full below is a Telegraph article by Jonathan Foreman* headlined “Theresa May is a great self-promoter, but a terrible Home Secretary”,which was pulled after pressure from her campaign.

http://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/

 

With London streets seeing pro-EU marches, its all about Pro-Corbyn marches in Manchester:

 

All that I know, is that even though I hated politicians before, I detest them even more now.
Imps, you know a great deal more about politics than I - are there any that you would actually be happy to see in power? In either major party?

 

There aren't many "nice people" in business that are strong enough to withstand pressure from outside that is the problem. "Nice" people in business aren't very often the best people to be the chief decision maker. Ruthlessness is not exactly a necessity but a strong will that won't be swayed by guilt or emotion is pretty key. You saw that with Boris. The day after he has the stool removed from underneath him and is pestered by those reporters he keeps calm. He knows the score.

I think it is very important to distinguish between the person and the politician. In business and in real life are not the same thing.

It isn't exactly like a business because the hierarchy is much more fluid. Think Office politics on a grand scale but with 625 (or whatever it is) potential CEOs all vying for position to get there to be able to influence and achieve what they genuinely think is the right way.

Most of these people are nice in person away from the snakepit but inside that snakepit which of course is not just in the bubble but everyday public life they have to be ruthless to get what they think is best for themselves and the country and have to support people they disagree with to get into a position where they can potentially get some of what they want.

Don't buy what you hear about Tory or Labour (or any other) MPs being disgusted about what someone else did or any other "shock horror." Anna Soubry's false disgust for things and Chris Grayling's support for leave show you all you need to know. They have positioned behind May not because of what she represents but to give them a better position to get what they want in terms of personal achievement and what they genuinely feel is right for the country. Power corrupts the mind sometimes. It isn't just about money. Many a politician has gone the way of Blair and Thatcher where it takes them over.

Angela Eagle and Margaret Beckett's tears? They aren't for the PLP or Corbyn they are probably genuine disappointment at what they are having to do to get to a position where they think is best to be able to do what they think is right. Most of these politicians are genuinely following what they think is the right way so of course they all disagree. We all disagree in what is the right way no matter how much common ground there is we all have little differences that we think are important.

As for nice people. Many will ridicule John Mann or Dennis Skinner for their outspoken views but they are pretty genuine guys. Caroline Lucas seems to be a very genuine person but the problem is I disagree with all 3 on their overall policy ideals.

I would bet when Caroline Lucas retires and produces a full memoir that she will tell it like it is. Biography's/memoirs that are written while these politicians are still involved might seem like they are firecracker material but they will be tamed versions. Even Mandelson's until he finally retires and also walks away from being a Heseltine figure still pushing his influence.

It is one reason why you have senior figures getting peerages. To keep them in the circle so they don't unleash the complete truth. Imagine what an uncensored book by John Prescott or someone like him would be like!!! It would not have Wow revelations in it. It would blow everything up.

I think the average man like you or I want to believe that there are nice people in business but at the end of the day if you are a boss even a nice boss making decisions and you have to sack one of your workers because he can't do the job well enough or because he is late too often he will think of you in the same way we think of politicians, just that we think that because they are 24/7 listened to, watched and in the public eye.

I think it is often nice to think of relative young naive newcomers like Lisa Nandy or Mhairie Black as being "pure" but while that might be a nice quality to believe could bring about a change the reality is they are much easier influenced by those that are tough businesspeople and politics is a business, the biggest of all with the most pressure.

This desire for "real world experience" and not "career politicians" is very far off the mark and something that many are keen to utilise as a soundbite. Being a politician is a real job and it is like an uber business. Everybody in there could potentially be a great leader if they can get their way through the "office politics" and keep people on side and yes, sometimes you have to switch your support to move forward into a position where you can at least alter something you feel is needed.

What is a nice person? Is every person that has to make tough decisions in life that affect others not nice? Politicians are no different than any other person. Just they are in the camera eye all day all year and their decisions directly affect you.

Andrea Leadsom is the "motherly" and human candidate, personable, charming, 30 years real world experience with the banks. Took on Bob Diamond over the Libor scandal and criticised George Osborne as well as Ed Balls in the select committee on live TV. She came through the debates very well and as yet has no real baggage to speak of. Do I think she is "nice" in there. No she will be as cut-throat as she needs to be because you can't get stuff done without being so.

Do I think she is the right candidate? Yes, she will choose wisely in people like Gove and Houghton and Mordaunt that will stave off those jostling for position behind the leader and will seek advice from many on things she isn't up to speed on. In business we know that we hire the right people for each job and delegate.

Is she a nice person in real life? I'm sure away from the public eye Michael Gove is nice and equally sure that Leadsom is nice. There really aren't that many horrible people in there just like in real life. People are people and there are good eggs and bad eggs. We've all encountered those types that will blame you for something in front of your boss when it was their mistake.

May seems that type where others like Boris accept their faults even if it seems they don't.

 

Another classic from Guido Fawkes political website about the anti-racist but very racist Diane Abbott:

Enjoy this written question asked by Diane Abbott on Thursday:

Diane Abbott:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she has taken to assist people in the Indonesian province of Province of Davao del Norte affected by the drought in that province.

Justine Greening:
There is no province called Davao del Norte in Indonesia.

Performance worthy of a promotion…


Davao del Norte is of course (as anybody with access to google would have "known" ) a province in the Philippines

 

The Daily Mail has an article on Momentum the Labour party (Corbynista) pressure group today. Quite eye opening in terms of what is really going on and why Eagle has halted her bid hoping Corbyn will resign :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...thful-followers-savage-MP-dares-defy-him.html

 

Going back to the Tony Blair like/dislike debate: If anyone thinks it was wrong to engage in the Iraq War, essentially to remove Saddam Hussein, then perhaps they might want to watch this programme on the development of chemical and biological weapons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...own-britains-secret-weapons-research-facility

Saddam Hussein used the identified chemical Sarin, amongst others, in the 1980's, on the Kurdish town of Halabja, Iraq, essentially on his own people. It was the Kurdish resistance to his rule: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...own-britains-secret-weapons-research-facility

 

Genius. Actually made me laugh for the first time since June 24!

 

But mate, the real lesson of the Iraq war was never go into a war with the USA. They'll bomb anything.

In April 1945 they dropped napalm on the French town of Royan in the mistaken belief that there was a massive German presence. They killed thousands of French civilians. Just down the Gironde were three members of the Hitler Youth with a rusty bike and dachsund called Siegfried. They were there to halt the Allied advance, and surrendered to the first person in uniform who went past. Sadly Siegfried didn't make it.

The Iraq war was a classic American strategy - let's bomb the **** out a place, and then have no plan for what comes next . Were they behind Brexit?

 

Clearly Sadam was a monster, I've worked with Kurdish individuals that have in short had their lives torn apart because of his grotesque actions. I don't believe our government always perceived him as a baddie though. Amongst other things, I think what angered people about 'that war' was the lack of consultation. Maybe there should have been a referendum! Indirectly the Wests decisions have knock on effects on these countries, but, this is another can of worms of which I am no expert.

 

The war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980's was fuelled by weapons sold to both sides by Britain and the USA, including chemical weapons.