blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 08:54:17 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272477 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Poll
Question: How will you vote on December 12th 2019
Conservative - 19 (33.9%)
Labour - 12 (21.4%)
SNP - 2 (3.6%)
Lib Dem - 8 (14.3%)
Brexit - 1 (1.8%)
Green - 6 (10.7%)
Other - 2 (3.6%)
Spoil - 0 (0%)
Not voting - 6 (10.7%)
Total Voters: 55

Pages: 1 ... 674 675 676 677 [678] 679 680 681 682 ... 1533 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged  (Read 2180923 times)
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #10155 on: June 16, 2017, 02:44:41 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?

It's not easy to measure. Which cuts do we mean? We're the 5/6th biggest economy in the world and it seems we can't afford to adequately fund any of our public services. Just looking at the closure of one station and measuring it in minutes/seconds in an emergency response won't tell us anything.

Crime rates fall - shouldn't we have less police?
Number of fires drops - shouldn't we have less firemen?

Or should we never, ever cut any public sector spending - just in case?


obviously waste and 'unnecessary spending' shouldn't be tolerated.

talking about crime from a numbers perspective doesn't work though.

we also have to be able to question how austerity is being applied when the absolute most important parts of our fabric (the bits that keep us safe) are given up in exchange for absolute bullshit that benefits those making the decisions.

These things are not clear, but from what I heared, I think the firemen got more out than perished.  Suspect some on the higher floors wouldn't have got out regardless.  

Getting a bit tired of politicians pointing fingers.  These tower blocks have been around 50 years or more.  I read somewhere there were 4000 or so.  I read a fairly recent report and something like 20 had been retrofitted with sprinklers at the time.

Many different governments and councils have had the ability to insist on that in the time sprinklers have been widely available.  Who the feck do they think sets the laws for these things to happen?  It isn't builders, manufacturers of cladding, bankers or the rich people of Kensington.
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7804



View Profile
« Reply #10156 on: June 16, 2017, 02:57:29 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?

It's not easy to measure. Which cuts do we mean? We're the 5/6th biggest economy in the world and it seems we can't afford to adequately fund any of our public services. Just looking at the closure of one station and measuring it in minutes/seconds in an emergency response won't tell us anything.

Crime rates fall - shouldn't we have less police?
Number of fires drops - shouldn't we have less firemen?

Or should we never, ever cut any public sector spending - just in case?


obviously waste and 'unnecessary spending' shouldn't be tolerated.

talking about crime from a numbers perspective doesn't work though.

we also have to be able to question how austerity is being applied when the absolute most important parts of our fabric (the bits that keep us safe) are given up in exchange for absolute bullshit that benefits those making the decisions.

These things are not clear, but from what I heared, I think the firemen got more out than perished.  Suspect some on the higher floors wouldn't have got out regardless.  

Getting a bit tired of politicians pointing fingers.  These tower blocks have been around 50 years or more.  I read somewhere there were 4000 or so.  I read a fairly recent report and something like 20 had been retrofitted with sprinklers at the time.

Many different governments and councils have had the ability to insist on that in the time sprinklers have been widely available.  Who the feck do they think sets the laws for these things to happen?  It isn't builders, manufacturers of cladding, bankers or the rich people of Kensington.

Gotta agree, it is nonsense to get all politically pious at this time although I did wonder if the EU was to blame for not regulating in this area
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10157 on: June 16, 2017, 03:04:33 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?

It's not easy to measure. Which cuts do we mean? We're the 5/6th biggest economy in the world and it seems we can't afford to adequately fund any of our public services. Just looking at the closure of one station and measuring it in minutes/seconds in an emergency response won't tell us anything.

Crime rates fall - shouldn't we have less police?
Number of fires drops - shouldn't we have less firemen?

Or should we never, ever cut any public sector spending - just in case?


obviously waste and 'unnecessary spending' shouldn't be tolerated.

talking about crime from a numbers perspective doesn't work though.

we also have to be able to question how austerity is being applied when the absolute most important parts of our fabric (the bits that keep us safe) are given up in exchange for absolute bullshit that benefits those making the decisions.

These things are not clear, but from what I heared, I think the firemen got more out than perished.  Suspect some on the higher floors wouldn't have got out regardless.  

Getting a bit tired of politicians pointing fingers.  These tower blocks have been around 50 years or more.  I read somewhere there were 4000 or so.  I read a fairly recent report and something like 20 had been retrofitted with sprinklers at the time.

Many different governments and councils have had the ability to insist on that in the time sprinklers have been widely available.  Who the feck do they think sets the laws for these things to happen?  It isn't builders, manufacturers of cladding, bankers or the rich people of Kensington.

+1

(this article I remembered was from 2012, so this probably covers 2010/2011 or earlier but the underlying point remains).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9014098/MPs-275000-wine-and-champagne-bill.html

lol 2014 article, spending was going up still - austerity though
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10861754/House-of-Commons-spent-more-than-1m-on-alcohol.html


2016 article....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parliament-boozes-way-through-12m-7556984



2017 article
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2813251/parliaments-alcohol-bill-triples-in-two-years-as-mps-guzzle-1-8-million-worth-of-wine-champers-and-beer/
it went up 3x from 2013/2014 to 2015/2016

this expenditure really benefits 'the people'.





A fireman starts on 20k and earns 30k when fully trained more for specialised positions of course.
A counselor earns 30-40k   (so says googles)


let's play the how many times does 1800000 pounds divide by 30000 and 40000 and ask why it's only ever the poor who are told they need to tighten their belts. their alcohol being subsidised like students is a farce.

when you look down an absolutely colossal list of expenditures knowing you need to get rid of ALOT how the hell does this rise whilst you cut back on everything of importance to so many people.

and this is just one thing, one very obviously ridiculous thing. they clearly make awful self serving decisions so much of the time.
Logged
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10158 on: June 16, 2017, 03:05:34 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?

It's not easy to measure. Which cuts do we mean? We're the 5/6th biggest economy in the world and it seems we can't afford to adequately fund any of our public services. Just looking at the closure of one station and measuring it in minutes/seconds in an emergency response won't tell us anything.

Crime rates fall - shouldn't we have less police?
Number of fires drops - shouldn't we have less firemen?

Or should we never, ever cut any public sector spending - just in case?


obviously waste and 'unnecessary spending' shouldn't be tolerated.

talking about crime from a numbers perspective doesn't work though.

we also have to be able to question how austerity is being applied when the absolute most important parts of our fabric (the bits that keep us safe) are given up in exchange for absolute bullshit that benefits those making the decisions.

These things are not clear, but from what I heared, I think the firemen got more out than perished.  Suspect some on the higher floors wouldn't have got out regardless.  

Getting a bit tired of politicians pointing fingers.  These tower blocks have been around 50 years or more.  I read somewhere there were 4000 or so.  I read a fairly recent report and something like 20 had been retrofitted with sprinklers at the time.

Many different governments and councils have had the ability to insist on that in the time sprinklers have been widely available.  Who the feck do they think sets the laws for these things to happen?  It isn't builders, manufacturers of cladding, bankers or the rich people of Kensington.

Gotta agree, it is nonsense to get all politically pious at this time although I did wonder if the EU was to blame for not regulating in this area

from what read this insulation is banned in the US, Germany and other EU nations.........

link - https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/875610702693580801
Logged
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #10159 on: June 16, 2017, 04:16:13 PM »

Portillo was fantastic on This Week

Utterly scathing of Theresa May and her performance in the last month.

But the look on his face as he contemplated a Corbyn government even gave me a pause for thought. I have supported and longed for the policies in the Labour manifesto to be enacted for as long as I've been politically aware.

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 04:17:46 PM by The Camel » Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #10160 on: June 16, 2017, 04:21:49 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #10161 on: June 16, 2017, 04:31:13 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?

1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks.

Record numbers of people sleeping rough.

No pay rises in the public sector for 7 years.

Cuts in police and fire services.

I think that qualifies as shit.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10162 on: June 16, 2017, 04:34:57 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?


healthier?  lol those government mp/scientists working super hard for us to have medical improvements in their time away from the house
crime? because victorian era crime was so accurately reported and tracked or insert any other time before technological advancements. maybe also previous eras weren't as good at massaging numbers to downplay many types of incidents to tick boxes


if we hadn't got better with advancing technology it would be an outrage (edit it's not because one party has somehow been super brilliant). we could say wars are good because we learnt how to deal with horrific injuries?


just take for example child mortality rates, with improved technology/drugs/scientific advancements/knowledge comes a better chance of survival.  by definition improving year on year is very hard because we have fewer problems arising because we can catch things early for example. however with society moving to being more and more divided the rate is now increasing again but for only one section of society. no prizes to guess for whom.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 04:40:08 PM by titaniumbean » Logged
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10163 on: June 16, 2017, 04:41:41 PM »

Putin made an interesting remark during his interview with this Oliver Stone looney.

"your leaders change but your policies don't."
Logged
StuartHopkin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8163


Ocho cinco


View Profile
« Reply #10164 on: June 16, 2017, 04:48:01 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?


hard to answer as there could always just be one driving past + it doesn't seem like they could do much beyond helping a small portion of people. i'd imagine you're trying to imply that the cuts didn't necessarily affect the on the night response.


other questions could be, how many more inspections could be done on tower blocks with less staff? or how many more counselors will these men and women who risked their lives have access to after stepping over numerous dead bodies? or how soon will those men and women who spent all night struggling to save lives have to go back to do another shift and go to other fires? or how many of these man and women will get double redundancy pay like Tory MPs?

Not sure what I am implying. Just feels like people are jumping on everything and everyone.

I agree cutting the emergency services isn't great, I agree that it is disgusting that they are allowed to expense booze whilst making any cuts, but just don't see that the Boris clip is relevant.
Logged

Only 23 days to go until the Berlin Marathon! Please sponsor me at www.virginmoneygiving.com/StuartHopkin
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #10165 on: June 16, 2017, 04:53:36 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?

1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks.

Record numbers of people sleeping rough.

No pay rises in the public sector for 7 years.

Cuts in police and fire services.

I think that qualifies as shit.

As far as I can tell they only started keeping records for rough sleepers in 2010 - so it's not a very impressive record; but it's really hard to find even estimates from other eras.

"1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks."

1.2 million handouts in a year doesn't mean 1.2 million families - unless each family only had one person get a handout, on only one occasion.

But even if that was the case - what is your basis for comparison?

I know that in the 1990's, for example, you could get handouts from the EU food surplus mountains. But they were much harder to qualify for, and it was much harder for any organisation to qualify to hand them out.

There may have been over a million actually getting those handouts and there may have been hardly any, figures don't seem to have been accurately kept - but it's definitely the case that if they had the current regulations on foodbanks available then there would have been a lot higher figure than there was.

Plucking a figure like a million is too high for foodbanks is just as meaningless as saying the rich should be taxed more - without any context it means nothing. I'm personally a lot happier that we have the ability now to help the people who need it rather than there being no figure to look at like there was previously because the problem wasn't adequately being addressed.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #10166 on: June 16, 2017, 04:55:29 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?

1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks.

Record numbers of people sleeping rough.

No pay rises in the public sector for 7 years.

Cuts in police and fire services.

I think that qualifies as shit.

As far as I can tell they only started keeping records for rough sleepers in 2010 - so it's not a very impressive record; but it's really hard to find even estimates from other eras.

"1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks."

1.2 million handouts in a year doesn't mean 1.2 million families - unless each family only had one person get a handout, on only one occasion.

But even if that was the case - what is your basis for comparison?

I know that in the 1990's, for example, you could get handouts from the EU food surplus mountains. But they were much harder to qualify for, and it was much harder for any organisation to qualify to hand them out.

There may have been over a million actually getting those handouts and there may have been hardly any, figures don't seem to have been accurately kept - but it's definitely the case that if they had the current regulations on foodbanks available then there would have been a lot higher figure than there was.

Plucking a figure like a million is too high for foodbanks is just as meaningless as saying the rich should be taxed more - without any context it means nothing. I'm personally a lot happier that we have the ability now to help the people who need it rather than there being no figure to look at like there was previously because the problem wasn't adequately being addressed.

In the fifth richest country in the world no one should have to use a foodbank.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #10167 on: June 16, 2017, 04:56:39 PM »

...

It will definitely be a leap into the unknown, and it might very well go tits up. But life has been too shit for too long for too many people. Time to give it a shot.

How many is too many?
How long is too long?
and for that matter, how shit is too shit?

What kind of metrics are using to come to that conclusion?

Because from what I can tell you can take any (roughly) 50 year gap at any time in history and people will be richer, healthier and less in danger of being a victim of crime. Given this has all been delivered by roughly the same version of what we have now - is it really time to give it a shot?

1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks.

Record numbers of people sleeping rough.

No pay rises in the public sector for 7 years.

Cuts in police and fire services.

I think that qualifies as shit.

As far as I can tell they only started keeping records for rough sleepers in 2010 - so it's not a very impressive record; but it's really hard to find even estimates from other eras.

"1.2 million people feeding themselves and their families from foodbanks."

1.2 million handouts in a year doesn't mean 1.2 million families - unless each family only had one person get a handout, on only one occasion.

But even if that was the case - what is your basis for comparison?

I know that in the 1990's, for example, you could get handouts from the EU food surplus mountains. But they were much harder to qualify for, and it was much harder for any organisation to qualify to hand them out.

There may have been over a million actually getting those handouts and there may have been hardly any, figures don't seem to have been accurately kept - but it's definitely the case that if they had the current regulations on foodbanks available then there would have been a lot higher figure than there was.

Plucking a figure like a million is too high for foodbanks is just as meaningless as saying the rich should be taxed more - without any context it means nothing. I'm personally a lot happier that we have the ability now to help the people who need it rather than there being no figure to look at like there was previously because the problem wasn't adequately being addressed.

In the fifth richest country in the world no one should have to use a foodbank.

Why?

Based on what?
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10168 on: June 16, 2017, 04:58:34 PM »

How much faster would the fire engine have arrived if Boris had not okayed the cuts?


hard to answer as there could always just be one driving past + it doesn't seem like they could do much beyond helping a small portion of people. i'd imagine you're trying to imply that the cuts didn't necessarily affect the on the night response.


other questions could be, how many more inspections could be done on tower blocks with less staff? or how many more counselors will these men and women who risked their lives have access to after stepping over numerous dead bodies? or how soon will those men and women who spent all night struggling to save lives have to go back to do another shift and go to other fires? or how many of these man and women will get double redundancy pay like Tory MPs?

Not sure what I am implying. Just feels like people are jumping on everything and everyone.

I agree cutting the emergency services isn't great, I agree that it is disgusting that they are allowed to expense booze whilst making any cuts, but just don't see that the Boris clip is relevant.

firstly, sorry if it seemed dickish these are emotive issues and some of the basic tenets (as you then say) seem so blatantly obvious to me.

secondly, the clip seems to actually say quite alot about where we are at and why


he is explaining that by cutting he improves service.  in some extreme circumstances through waste, negligence etc this could potentially be true, plus anyone who is in the service affected will likely argue that it's bad, however when you have the police/fire explaining that no you haven't actually done anything to improve you are just cost cutting for the sake of saying you've saved money whilst not acknowledging  the negative effect this will have we should listen.Therefore the guy says you are lying (which we really have to believe the people working on the front line who are affected not the guy pushing for election/power/fame/respect for his party etc) is speaking with the most ethical position.

the response from the Mayor of London was "Get stuffed" in his usual arrogant tone. Why doesn't he have the ability to actually explain why his decision is a good one, why doesn't he have the strength of character to not be rude as someone who should be a bastion of society and someone to look up to? should teachers or medical staff have to be told by children/patients etc get stuffed this is the example I was set. He clearly cant defend his position properly (much like the whole of the conservative manifesto at the election which is why all they did was smear and be negative about the opposition essentially arguing they were just the least shit of a bunch of bad options) and so he just says that. that literally highlights the mentality of we need to cut something and my 905 quid bottle of wine for lunch is not an option so here let's go against this industry of life savers and our last line of defense because fk you we're well off enough to have much less of a requirement for these things.


it's literally why the banks can screw us and face minimal retribution and then have little change, it's why the police work extra long shifts so the PM can claim 'more are on the streets' whilst omitting it's the same ones from yesterdays long shift, it's why the intelligence community have to cherry pick so carefully what they expend time on because they cant conceivably do it all.  all along were told this is good for you by people having back door meetings with the press and banker billionaires who all surprisingly benefit from all their decisions then give them huge paying jobs when they are out of office. it stinks.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 05:01:40 PM by titaniumbean » Logged
titaniumbean
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10048


Equity means nothing.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10169 on: June 16, 2017, 04:59:29 PM »


Plucking a figure like a million is too high for foodbanks is just as meaningless as saying the rich should be taxed more - without any context it means nothing. I'm personally a lot happier that we have the ability now to help the people who need it rather than there being no figure to look at like there was previously because the problem wasn't adequately being addressed.


+ more than 1
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 674 675 676 677 [678] 679 680 681 682 ... 1533 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.43 seconds with 22 queries.