The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

I don't want to give you too much reading though. You struggled last time #whatconstitution?

[Hoboh]

You do know he lost?

Very sharp.

He has made history by securing Labours greatest increasd in vote share since 1945.

He has bucked the enormously significant trend of Rupert Murdoch correctly endorsing the prime minister since taking over the sun in 1969.

In his campaign he drew the biggest crowds since Churchill in 1945.

The highest youth participation for 25 years.

The largest comeback from a large negative poll rating ever.

1 lame duck prime minister - gone within the year.

All achieved with a treacherous Blairite plp that tried to oust him from day 1. From his current position of great strength and with a coming united plp. He will be prime minister within 5 years.

Peace out.

I've not stopped laughing at this, sorry but the pigeons that visit from time to time could have given May a run for her money, she was so inept it was unbelievable.
I am sorry but a left wing Marxist lead party will never get elected no matter how it tries, here I agree with BWFCi, a moderate Blair type with policies that didn't chuck the baby out with the bath water but different would have murdered May in an election, she is so shit she needs to go but the bugger is who would replace her from her party, most of them are damaged goods now.

[Hoboh]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think someone said that. If they didn't, it's the sort of thing they should have said.

So, and catchphrase alert here, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Tories would so readily jump in to bed with a nefarious a crowd as the DUP - well, interestingly it highlights how grasping for power they are. And how utterly ridiculous people sound when they conjure up the spectre of crazy coalitions. That'd be Tories 2 -0 against everyone so far by the way.

And I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of final salary pensions, in both public and private sector (hint:they weren't confined to the public sector, and they certainly din't just rip a hole in the public sector finances) don't exist anymore.

So you'd rather Corbyn 'grasped at power' by using the support of the council leader of Scotland who has just had her arse slapped by her own people?
Or maybe you would prefer the odious Limp Dems propping him up just like they did Cameron to fulfil their sense of importance?
There is more than one side to a story you know.

[Hoboh]

And I'll also bet that a larger percentage of people on in-work benefits work in the private sector. Why the f*ck do I have to subsidise greedy companies who won't pay their workers a decent wage that they can afford?

Something we agree on there mate.

[Worthy4England]

More worrying for people like me was the clear statement that the public sector should get significant wage increases, payable by the private sector, of course.

Public sector employees don't pay income tax? Blimey. Missed that

Who said they don't pay tax? The equation is simple - let's just say for the sake of argument that a public sector worker is paid £30k per annum, his tax and NI would amount to just over £6k. His employer's costs, excluding the generous pension final salary arrangements still in place for many public sector employees, amount to on costs for payroll, employers NI contributions, HR and temporary employees to cover sickness absence (three times as high on average as the private sector) would be somewhere around a further £4k. So he/she costs us £34000 per year and contributes £6k in taxes before spending net income.

If you are trying to imply that public sector employees cover their employment costs through taxes, you are sadly mistaken. The balance of £28k comes from the private sector.

You imply that anyone has argued the public sector pays for itself. Of course it doesn't, if it's supposed to, good luck with the volunteer charged with sorting your inevitable stroke. The public sector by definition costs money. You need an argument as to why it isn't worth it, not why doctors or soldiers are paid more than they pay in.

I'm happy to have spent the last two years treating the terrorist-sympathiser Corbyn with the disdain he deserves for kowtowing to Adams et al. After six weeks of snide ads about his history, you're damn right if I think TesMes can f*ck jolly well right off for her supplication to a bunch who are psychos even when they aren't terrorists, which they are.

Well of course there's Peter Robinson. I guess he was just off to fancy dress in this shot...

Nothing to do with the DUP of course since his retirement from leading it last year. Only been a member of it since they were formed..

[Bruce Rioja]

Some upside? This is a wonderful result. Tories in chaos and now with an undeliverable mandate.

Corbyn has shown socialism can be revived. The youth turnout shows what can be achieved. Labour can now work together to ensure Corbyn's platform remains, with a few tweaks, and a more electable leader endorsed by Corbyn. That isn't easy, but Labour are in a great spot right now. They can probably consider themselves favourites at the next election, whenever that might be.

fecking Hell. As if by magic you've changed your tune, Old Son.

Quelle surprise!

[Bruce Rioja]

Some upside? This is a wonderful result. Tories in chaos and now with an undeliverable mandate.

Corbyn has shown socialism can be revived. The youth turnout shows what can be achieved. Labour can now work together to ensure Corbyn's platform remains, with a few tweaks, and a more electable leader endorsed by Corbyn. That isn't easy, but Labour are in a great spot right now. They can probably consider themselves favourites at the next election, whenever that might be.

fecking Hell. As if by magic you've changed your tune, Old Son.

Quelle surprise!

[bedwetter2]

I don't want to give you too much reading though. You struggled last time #whatconstitution?

Nonsense. There is no comprehensive written constitution.

[Lord Kangana]

More worrying for people like me was the clear statement that the public sector should get significant wage increases, payable by the private sector, of course.

Public sector employees don't pay income tax? Blimey. Missed that

Who said they don't pay tax? The equation is simple - let's just say for the sake of argument that a public sector worker is paid £30k per annum, his tax and NI would amount to just over £6k. His employer's costs, excluding the generous pension final salary arrangements still in place for many public sector employees, amount to on costs for payroll, employers NI contributions, HR and temporary employees to cover sickness absence (three times as high on average as the private sector) would be somewhere around a further £4k. So he/she costs us £34000 per year and contributes £6k in taxes before spending net income.

If you are trying to imply that public sector employees cover their employment costs through taxes, you are sadly mistaken. The balance of £28k comes from the private sector.

You imply that anyone has argued the public sector pays for itself. Of course it doesn't, if it's supposed to, good luck with the volunteer charged with sorting your inevitable stroke. The public sector by definition costs money. You need an argument as to why it isn't worth it, not why doctors or soldiers are paid more than they pay in.

I'm happy to have spent the last two years treating the terrorist-sympathiser Corbyn with the disdain he deserves for kowtowing to Adams et al. After six weeks of snide ads about his history, you're damn right if I think TesMes can f*ck jolly well right off for her supplication to a bunch who are psychos even when they aren't terrorists, which they are.

Well of course there's Peter Robinson. I guess he was just off to fancy dress in this shot...

Nothing to do with the DUP of course since his retirement from leading it last year. Only been a member of it since they were formed..

Clearly fake news.

And besides, everyone now knows we've always been ar war with Eurasia and friends with Eastasia.

In case anyone isn't quite up to speed with the above quote, please interpret it as 'you f*cking idiot'.

[Worthy4England]

Some upside? This is a wonderful result. Tories in chaos and now with an undeliverable mandate.

Corbyn has shown socialism can be revived. The youth turnout shows what can be achieved. Labour can now work together to ensure Corbyn's platform remains, with a few tweaks, and a more electable leader endorsed by Corbyn. That isn't easy, but Labour are in a great spot right now. They can probably consider themselves favourites at the next election, whenever that might be.

fecking Hell. As if by magic you've changed your tune, Old Son.

Quelle surprise!

Now if only it wasn't for that missing 50 seats or so...

Kinnock 1992 - against a Major govt beset by problems in the media, at the time, it didn't feel too dissimilar to this level of disarray and infighting - 271 seats (11.5m votes) - never at the races - his best shot and he lost by 65 seats and 2.5m votes. Labour thought he was ok from a very low starting point, rest of the country thought he was a c*nt.

Howard 2005 - actually closer on votes (only 800k votes different) but nowhere near on seats still 150 short. This IMO was a little bit like Labour going back to Momentum...Tories thought he was a success (broadly or they wouldn't have picked him) - the rest of the country generally thought he was a c*nt. Let's get back to our basic principles (yaddda, yadda), Michael knows what he's about (yadda, yadda), the good old days. When they elected Howard, I put a bet on the 2005 election.

Corbyn 2017 - 800k votes different - not a 150 seat majority for Tories - hung parliament. In vote share, it's probably closest to Michael Howard in reverse, better than Kinnock on vote share (about the same on seats)...

No way on God's green earth was Howard EVER going to convince enough moderates from outside the Tory party to vote for him.
No way on God's green earth was Kinnock EVER going to convince enough moderates from outside the Labour party to vote for him.

Same with Corbyn for me. He's won more votes than Kinnock did but only about the same number of seats. But he'll never convince enough people - the one proviso to that is "austerity". If we lock all the economists in a room somewhere no one can hear them, then I think out in "normal people" land, most folks have had enough of it. Yet with that as a central plank of the Tory manifesto (I think), Corbyn has just come up a long way short. And like the other two scenarios, too many people think he's a c*nt.

[bedwetter2]

More worrying for people like me was the clear statement that the public sector should get significant wage increases, payable by the private sector, of course.

Public sector employees don't pay income tax? Blimey. Missed that

Who said they don't pay tax? The equation is simple - let's just say for the sake of argument that a public sector worker is paid £30k per annum, his tax and NI would amount to just over £6k. His employer's costs, excluding the generous pension final salary arrangements still in place for many public sector employees, amount to on costs for payroll, employers NI contributions, HR and temporary employees to cover sickness absence (three times as high on average as the private sector) would be somewhere around a further £4k. So he/she costs us £34000 per year and contributes £6k in taxes before spending net income.

If you are trying to imply that public sector employees cover their employment costs through taxes, you are sadly mistaken. The balance of £28k comes from the private sector.

You imply that anyone has argued the public sector pays for itself. Of course it doesn't, if it's supposed to, good luck with the volunteer charged with sorting your inevitable stroke. The public sector by definition costs money. You need an argument as to why it isn't worth it, not why doctors or soldiers are paid more than they pay in.

I'm happy to have spent the last two years treating the terrorist-sympathiser Corbyn with the disdain he deserves for kowtowing to Adams et al. After six weeks of snide ads about his history, you're damn right if I think TesMes can f*ck jolly well right off for her supplication to a bunch who are psychos even when they aren't terrorists, which they are.

Well of course there's Peter Robinson. I guess he was just off to fancy dress in this shot...

Nothing to do with the DUP of course since his retirement from leading it last year. Only been a member of it since they were formed..

I don't see why you should ignore Mr Genshaw's view that in some way the public sector is self-supporting. I replied to that, nothing more.

As to why the public sector may or may not be worth it, you may need to refer to virtually all local authorities paying their senior staff more than is warranted (in my local authority, a unitary one, staff salaries and pensions account for 42% of income) and, why leaders of Councils or NHS trusts have managed to escape before disciplinary action is taken against them only to reappear at another such organisation with full pension rights to be added to their new benefits including 'golden handshakes' in some examples. Quangos and political advisers. There was supposed to be a "call me Dave" bonfire of the quangos. Not happened has it?

I'm happy for doctors and soldiers to be well paid. That was not what I implied. You probably don't wish to contemplate whether the public sector is sized correctly for the population of the country. It certainly wasn't before 2010 when the civil service was used as a job creation scheme to keep the number of unemployed at lower levels. Anyway, you in the legal profession are probably largely reliant upon public largesse so are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds.

The DUP, as I have previously stated is a backward looking disruptive political party. I have no love for them, but they were never a proscribed organisation and there have not been any proven terrorist links. To claim otherwise would invite a libel prosecution.

[Lord Kangana]

The tories increased public sector executive pay. I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

[bedwetter2]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I think someone said that. If they didn't, it's the sort of thing they should have said.

So, and catchphrase alert here, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Tories would so readily jump in to bed with a nefarious a crowd as the DUP - well, interestingly it highlights how grasping for power they are. And how utterly ridiculous people sound when they conjure up the spectre of crazy coalitions. That'd be Tories 2 -0 against everyone so far by the way.

And I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of final salary pensions, in both public and private sector (hint:they weren't confined to the public sector, and they certainly din't just rip a hole in the public sector finances) don't exist anymore.

The only defined benefits schemes which still exist in the private sector are now on life support in the Pension Protection Fund or are about to be closed. There are 11 remaining DB schemes in the top 250 UK companies - all will close within 12 months.

In contrast teachers, NHS workers, police, firefighters, armed forces and some other public sector employees are in unfunded DB schemes, i.e. their pensions are paid out of general taxation and in many cases employees make no contribution at all.

You need to do your homework, Catchphrase Man.

[bedwetter2]

The tories increased public sector executive pay. I'm sure you understand the reasons why.

Source?

[Worthy4England]

I don't see why you should ignore Mr Genshaw's view that in some way the public sector is self-supporting. I replied to that, nothing more.

As to why the public sector may or may not be worth it, you may need to refer to virtually all local authorities paying their senior staff more than is warranted (in my local authority, a unitary one, staff salaries and pensions account for 42% of income) and, why leaders of Councils or NHS trusts have managed to escape before disciplinary action is taken against them only to reappear at another such organisation with full pension rights to be added to their new benefits including 'golden handshakes' in some examples. Quangos and political advisers. There was supposed to be a "call me Dave" bonfire of the quangos. Not happened has it?

I'm happy for doctors and soldiers to be well paid. That was not what I implied. You probably don't wish to contemplate whether the public sector is sized correctly for the population of the country. It certainly wasn't before 2010 when the civil service was used as a job creation scheme to keep the number of unemployed at lower levels. Anyway, you in the legal profession are probably largely reliant upon public largesse so are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds.

The DUP, as I have previously stated is a backward looking disruptive political party. I have no love for them, but they were never a proscribed organisation and there have not been any proven terrorist links. To claim otherwise would invite a libel prosecution.

Dunno quite where to start with this, but I'll give it a whirl.

I suspect HG was responding to your comment and didn't suggest, as far as I read, that somehow the public sector was self supporting. You suggested it was all to be paid by the private sector - HG pointed out that public sector employees pay tax too (which is largely the mechanism we use to pay for the public sector).

More worrying for people like me was the clear statement that the public sector should get significant wage increases, payable by the private sector, of course.

Public sector employees don't pay income tax? Blimey. Missed that

I can understand your worry, that it might cost more - that might take a few extra quid out of your pocket. Then when my missus mates' come round two of whom are nurses and talk about their various day jobs (only one of which is nursing) to ensure they can pay the bills I think something's wrong somewhere. The Tories have had 7 years in which they could've addressed the points you raise above or the fact we've got nurses going to foodbanks. They haven't. I'm all for trimming down some of the middle and upper management shite and paying frontline staff a bit more.

As to your sneering comment

Anyway, you in the legal profession are probably largely reliant upon public largesse so are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds.

I'm not in the legal profession (and as far as I'm aware have never suggested the same - maybe you're referring to Pru - who I believe is in the legal profession)

On to the DUP. I'll stick with my assertion that they're a group of people only some reprehensible turds would have holding the casting vote after an election - as I made fairly clear would apply equally to Sinn Fein. Then again now we have some reprehensible turds trying to structure their government that way, I'm not surprised either.

As to inviting libel, I posted a picture of a bloke holding an AK47 which is fairly normal at all the fancy dress parties I go to (it's a bit rough round here and in fairness they prefer Uzi's). People can judge for themselves whether there are any connotations in relation to that or whether it was just a normal family holiday pic.

You carry on consoling yourself that because they've never been proscribed, they're little angels - will help you sleep better.

I'm not bothered about the T word and it's chances of getting me done for libel - so here goes - They're nice people.

[Lord Kangana]

Haha. Seriously though, did you not know what they legislated in the 80's? It doesn't require a source, it's there on the statute book.

[Lord Kangana]

Oh, and if you want discussion about final salary scheme, I'm happy. Why have you suddenly brought up defined benefit though? Do you not understand the difference or something?

[Bruce Rioja]

Some upside? This is a wonderful result. Tories in chaos and now with an undeliverable mandate.

Corbyn has shown socialism can be revived. The youth turnout shows what can be achieved. Labour can now work together to ensure Corbyn's platform remains, with a few tweaks, and a more electable leader endorsed by Corbyn. That isn't easy, but Labour are in a great spot right now. They can probably consider themselves favourites at the next election, whenever that might be.

fecking Hell. As if by magic you've changed your tune, Old Son.

Quelle surprise!

Now if only it wasn't for that missing 50 seats or so...

Kinnock 1992 - against a Major govt beset by problems in the media, at the time, it didn't feel too dissimilar to this level of disarray and infighting - 271 seats (11.5m votes) - never at the races - his best shot and he lost by 65 seats and 2.5m votes. Labour thought he was ok from a very low starting point, rest of the country thought he was a c*nt.

Howard 2005 - actually closer on votes (only 800k votes different) but nowhere near on seats still 150 short. This IMO was a little bit like Labour going back to Momentum...Tories thought he was a success (broadly or they wouldn't have picked him) - the rest of the country generally thought he was a c*nt. Let's get back to our basic principles (yaddda, yadda), Michael knows what he's about (yadda, yadda), the good old days. When they elected Howard, I put a bet on the 2005 election.

Corbyn 2017 - 800k votes different - not a 150 seat majority for Tories - hung parliament. In vote share, it's probably closest to Michael Howard in reverse, better than Kinnock on vote share (about the same on seats)...

No way on God's green earth was Howard EVER going to convince enough moderates from outside the Tory party to vote for him.
No way on God's green earth was Kinnock EVER going to convince enough moderates from outside the Labour party to vote for him.

Same with Corbyn for me. He's won more votes than Kinnock did but only about the same number of seats. But he'll never convince enough people - the one proviso to that is "austerity". If we lock all the economists in a room somewhere no one can hear them, then I think out in "normal people" land, most folks have had enough of it. Yet with that as a central plank of the Tory manifesto (I think), Corbyn has just come up a long way short. And like the other two scenarios, too many people think he's a c*nt.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with my remark to BWFC-I

[Worthy4England]

Were you 15 seconds outside your PB or something this morning you grumpy bastard.

[Prufrock]

I don't want to give you too much reading though. You struggled last time #whatconstitution?

Nonsense. There is no comprehensive written constitution.

By Jove I think he's got it!