Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
""That's just off the top of my head." I'd like to see you open your mouth!!
I see that Ford over here are to stop making all cars except for the Mustang and focus on pickups SUVs and trucks. Anything said over there about cars made in the UK?
BBC seems to be having a big push on obesity, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall trying to get Geordies to lose weight and mainly blaming corporations for making us eat **** last night and another programme on now, which has claimed that genes can play a part - in a tiny minority of people. Mainly it’s inability to walk past a fast food joint or buying a Mars bar every 15 minutes. Whittingstall alluded to it, but no one has explicitly linked poverty to bad diet, as yet.
Apparently (I haven’t fact checked it) we spend more on the health implications of obesity than we do on the police, fire service and judicial system combined. 6,000 people a year have bariatric surgery.
It’s interesting in the age where the individual is king/queen that we can’t ask individuals to look after themselves for fear of causing offence. The council officials in the Whittingstall programme refused to use the words ‘fat’ ‘obesity’ and ‘diet’ in the campaign in case they upset or scared anyone, or made them feel bad about themselves. Surely no one can be unaware of what a healthy diet looks like nowadays, we are bombarded with information. Whether they can afford one is another matter.
Statistically 62% (2014, probably more now) of the adults based in the UK reading this will be overweight, so apologies for any offence caused.
Apparently (I haven’t fact checked it) we spend more on the health implications of obesity than we do on the police, fire service and judicial system combined. 6,000 people a year have bariatric surgery.
It’s interesting in the age where the individual is king/queen that we can’t ask individuals to look after themselves for fear of causing offence. The council officials in the Whittingstall programme refused to use the words ‘fat’ ‘obesity’ and ‘diet’ in the campaign in case they upset or scared anyone, or made them feel bad about themselves. Surely no one can be unaware of what a healthy diet looks like nowadays, we are bombarded with information. Whether they can afford one is another matter.
Statistically 62% (2014, probably more now) of the adults based in the UK reading this will be overweight, so apologies for any offence caused.
Last edited:
Fattist.
I'm genuinely puzzled by some of the enormous people I see around the place. How do they let themselves get like that? Genetics in a few cases, but the rest just need to eat less and get a little exercise, surely? I saw a woman recently gliding along on what I assume to have been a mobility scooter - it wasn't visible under the gallons of fat. Get off and walk!
Apologies for getting a bit Shefford.
I see that your favourite Tory, Big Ruth, will be getting a bit "bigger" over the next few months, having just announced she is pregnant.
She looked over-joyed when being interviewed on the local news up here - she plans to return after a short break, and then get married. Holyrood will miss the grilling she gives Sturgeon whilst she's off.
Shout out to Stainsey’s mob.
While I was sitting in A&E the other night turns out my son on the way a mate’s house from the pub, fell (avoiding a cat, allegedly) and cut his arm quite badly on some glass. He didn’t realise quite how badly until sitting down he noticed that the sleeve of his hoodie was entirely soaked with blood. Ambulance called and the paramedics had a look, said ‘you don’t want to go to A&E, do you?’ And cleaned and stitched the wound on the spot. Thus saving me the trauma of having my wife faint when she saw the boy covered in blood at the hospital (she can’t handle blood, had to have a lie down even with the tiny punctures on her thumb left by dog). As he is a builder I expect my son to pick up the odd injury, but he is incredibly accident prone and his wounds are rarely caused by work.
So great stuff from Warwickshire Ambulance Services, getting something sorted and avoiding clogging A&E up, and most important preventing me being exposed to unnecessary drama. Though I’m not convinced I’d want Stainsey performing the same operation on me, at least until he’s had a bit of practice on others.
While I was sitting in A&E the other night turns out my son on the way a mate’s house from the pub, fell (avoiding a cat, allegedly) and cut his arm quite badly on some glass. He didn’t realise quite how badly until sitting down he noticed that the sleeve of his hoodie was entirely soaked with blood. Ambulance called and the paramedics had a look, said ‘you don’t want to go to A&E, do you?’ And cleaned and stitched the wound on the spot. Thus saving me the trauma of having my wife faint when she saw the boy covered in blood at the hospital (she can’t handle blood, had to have a lie down even with the tiny punctures on her thumb left by dog). As he is a builder I expect my son to pick up the odd injury, but he is incredibly accident prone and his wounds are rarely caused by work.
So great stuff from Warwickshire Ambulance Services, getting something sorted and avoiding clogging A&E up, and most important preventing me being exposed to unnecessary drama. Though I’m not convinced I’d want Stainsey performing the same operation on me, at least until he’s had a bit of practice on others.
Last edited:
I used to trip over cats quite often coming back from the pub
I see Rudd is getting some stick and correctly so. Useless clown. Why are these people allowed to get away with it!!!!!
The real blame for the current fiasco lies with May. Rudd is just a scapegoat, but she will probably be forced out.
A customs union won't solve Britain's problems — but it's better than the looming alternative.
by
Michael R. Bloomberg
April 27, 2018, 1:00 AM EDT
Leadership, please.
Photographer: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Theresa May's government is still promising to quit Europe's customs union when Brexit happens next year. The prime minister's position is politically understandable, yet entirely indefensible. And it perfectly captures the bind Britain has gotten itself into.
Staying in the European Union's customs union after Brexit, or joining some specially tailored version of it, would leave the U.K. with a worse deal than the one it currently enjoys as a full member of the EU. All Remainers think so, and a good many Leavers would probably agree. Proposing such an outcome comes close to admitting that the whole Brexit project has gone wrong. It has gone wrong — but, understandably, that's something May and her colleagues are unwilling to say.
For all the limitations of a customs-union arrangement, crashing out of the EU with no deal at all — a so-called hard Brexit, and the future to which the country is drifting — would be much worse. It would throw Britain's trade relations into disarray and inflict grave harm on the economy. It would also jeopardize peace in Northern Ireland by requiring a hard border between the North and the Republic of Ireland. Staying in the customs union would lessen all these risks, which is why refusing to countenance it is indefensible.
Members of a customs union apply a common external tariff on goods, and trade with each other tariff-free. This wouldn't maintain the U.K.'s frictionless commerce with the EU — for that, full regulatory compliance and membership in the single market are needed as well. By itself, therefore, a customs union wouldn't solve the border issue. But it would help. Meanwhile, British exporters would be relieved to know that business with the EU would not come to a screeching halt.
The problem is that a customs union stops the U.K. from striking new deals of its own, negating one of the main supposed benefits of Brexit. Worse, Britain would be bound by EU trade deals with third parties, despite having no vote on them, and no guarantee of sharing in the reciprocal benefits the deals would confer on EU partners. Membership in the EU is already unpopular with roughly half the country. Such a grossly asymmetrical arrangement would be even more toxic.
Brexit supporters also have reason to suspect that advocates of the customs-union approach have a hidden agenda. This compromise would tacitly acknowledge that the Brexit decision was wrong, and thus looks like the first step in a campaign to reverse it altogether. But those same Brexit supporters have no right to complain. Led by a government lacking faith in its own policy, they've failed to give any remotely plausible account of how their preferred hard Brexit can succeed.
QuickTake How a 'Customs Union' Helps Businesses With Brexit
The essential point hasn't changed. The Brexit vote was a mistake, and ought to be reversed now, not later. Britain's members of parliament are mostly opposed to Brexit, yet can't bring themselves to do their jobs and act on that conviction. The country and its legislators are therefore left squabbling over the choice between a bad result and a terrible one.
Exactly how this catastrophic failure of leadership will be resolved is hard to say. No forthright pro-EU candidate for the highest office has emerged in either party. The country seems exhausted, and calls for a second referendum to reverse the Brexit choice are falling on deaf ears. Nothing short of a major political crisis seems capable of breaking the collective paralysis.
It's come to something when such a dire and unpredictable prospect starts to look appealing.
by
Michael R. Bloomberg
April 27, 2018, 1:00 AM EDT
You must log in or register to see images
Leadership, please.
Photographer: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Theresa May's government is still promising to quit Europe's customs union when Brexit happens next year. The prime minister's position is politically understandable, yet entirely indefensible. And it perfectly captures the bind Britain has gotten itself into.
Staying in the European Union's customs union after Brexit, or joining some specially tailored version of it, would leave the U.K. with a worse deal than the one it currently enjoys as a full member of the EU. All Remainers think so, and a good many Leavers would probably agree. Proposing such an outcome comes close to admitting that the whole Brexit project has gone wrong. It has gone wrong — but, understandably, that's something May and her colleagues are unwilling to say.
For all the limitations of a customs-union arrangement, crashing out of the EU with no deal at all — a so-called hard Brexit, and the future to which the country is drifting — would be much worse. It would throw Britain's trade relations into disarray and inflict grave harm on the economy. It would also jeopardize peace in Northern Ireland by requiring a hard border between the North and the Republic of Ireland. Staying in the customs union would lessen all these risks, which is why refusing to countenance it is indefensible.
Members of a customs union apply a common external tariff on goods, and trade with each other tariff-free. This wouldn't maintain the U.K.'s frictionless commerce with the EU — for that, full regulatory compliance and membership in the single market are needed as well. By itself, therefore, a customs union wouldn't solve the border issue. But it would help. Meanwhile, British exporters would be relieved to know that business with the EU would not come to a screeching halt.
The problem is that a customs union stops the U.K. from striking new deals of its own, negating one of the main supposed benefits of Brexit. Worse, Britain would be bound by EU trade deals with third parties, despite having no vote on them, and no guarantee of sharing in the reciprocal benefits the deals would confer on EU partners. Membership in the EU is already unpopular with roughly half the country. Such a grossly asymmetrical arrangement would be even more toxic.
Brexit supporters also have reason to suspect that advocates of the customs-union approach have a hidden agenda. This compromise would tacitly acknowledge that the Brexit decision was wrong, and thus looks like the first step in a campaign to reverse it altogether. But those same Brexit supporters have no right to complain. Led by a government lacking faith in its own policy, they've failed to give any remotely plausible account of how their preferred hard Brexit can succeed.
QuickTake How a 'Customs Union' Helps Businesses With Brexit
The essential point hasn't changed. The Brexit vote was a mistake, and ought to be reversed now, not later. Britain's members of parliament are mostly opposed to Brexit, yet can't bring themselves to do their jobs and act on that conviction. The country and its legislators are therefore left squabbling over the choice between a bad result and a terrible one.
Exactly how this catastrophic failure of leadership will be resolved is hard to say. No forthright pro-EU candidate for the highest office has emerged in either party. The country seems exhausted, and calls for a second referendum to reverse the Brexit choice are falling on deaf ears. Nothing short of a major political crisis seems capable of breaking the collective paralysis.
It's come to something when such a dire and unpredictable prospect starts to look appealing.
Rudd falls on her sword...
Amber Rudd resigns as home secretary
Home Secretary Amber Rudd has resigned, Downing Street has said.
Ms Rudd, who was due to make a Commons statement on Monday, was under pressure to quit over the Windrush scandal.
She has faced criticism over the existence of Home Office removals targets and her knowledge of them.
On Sunday, the Guardian published a letter to Theresa May, in which Ms Rudd set out her "ambitious but deliverable" aim to deport 10% more illegal immigrants over the "next few years."
Ms Rudd telephoned the prime minister on Sunday evening to tell her of the decision amid intensifying opposition demands for her to quit.
A No 10 spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has tonight accepted the resignation of the Home Secretary."
Her position was pretty untenable, wasn't really any way she could stay in post after not towing the party line with regards to Customs Union though.....
Amber Rudd resigns as home secretary
You must log in or register to see images
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESHome Secretary Amber Rudd has resigned, Downing Street has said.
Ms Rudd, who was due to make a Commons statement on Monday, was under pressure to quit over the Windrush scandal.
She has faced criticism over the existence of Home Office removals targets and her knowledge of them.
On Sunday, the Guardian published a letter to Theresa May, in which Ms Rudd set out her "ambitious but deliverable" aim to deport 10% more illegal immigrants over the "next few years."
Ms Rudd telephoned the prime minister on Sunday evening to tell her of the decision amid intensifying opposition demands for her to quit.
A No 10 spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has tonight accepted the resignation of the Home Secretary."
Her position was pretty untenable, wasn't really any way she could stay in post after not towing the party line with regards to Customs Union though.....
It’s quite scandalous that May will cling on again.
She had to go, but she was just covering for May. Hopefully she will speak out from the back benches.
The worst thing about Rudd resigning is the platform it gives to Dianne Abbot to spout her usual ****e with a massive smug grin all over her face - thankfully she's not in power
The circus continues as another dead cat is thrown onto the table…
Just why has Rudd resigned, exactly? Was it:
Just why has Rudd resigned, exactly? Was it:
- because she really did know there were targets and lied about it?
- because she didn’t know there were targets and she should have known?
- because the department she was responsible for had a policy that was reprehensible and now it’s being talked about it by the public it reinforces the idea that the Conservatives are “the nasty party”, and so she takes the blame because she’s the current incumbent?
- something else?