The Politics Thread

[Lord Kangana]

The PSDs cover a ridiculously large number of operations. The complexities are enormous. I like to think I know plenty about them, and I do, in fact more so than most employees of the FSA (who's job is it is to oversee them, loosely, shit we're into another area of complexity here, because whilst they're under the remit of The FSA they are also simultaneously outside it. Are you keeping up? They were exempted from The Financial Services and Markets act (2000?) so in effect they can do both. Its f*cking bizarre trying to brief people on this btw, they look at you like you've got two heads) but you could spend a lifetime reading them and never get to grips with them.

The issue of cross-border transfer is very pertinent in our case, as it only represented about 30-40% of customers, but about 80% of the currency. And it also has to be stressed that there are huge gaping holes in the legislation, holes we've tried to fill. Such as exactly the kind of scenario you've come up with. What happens if the Norwegian has a bank account in Euors in the EU? As I say, my argument isn't necessarily predicated on the shifting sands of the slippery PSDs, but the process I went through to try and tackle them. Its my understanding that as a member of the EEA we would have no entitlement to sitting MEPs. Under those circumstances I wouldn't have had a voice.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As I say, my argument isn't necessarily predicated on the shifting sands of the slippery PSDs, but the process I went through to try and tackle them.

Can you just be really specific if you can about what remedy you were looking for?

Were you looking for a change in law that would have retrospective effect to benefit you?

Or were you altruistically looking to sort out the feck up for others in the future?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Isn't that Huhne trial due about now?

[Lord Kangana]

As I say, my argument isn't necessarily predicated on the shifting sands of the slippery PSDs, but the process I went through to try and tackle them.

Can you just be really specific if you can about what remedy you were looking for?

Were you looking for a change in law that would have retrospective effect to benefit you?

Or were you altruistically looking to sort out the feck up for others in the future?

There's no altruism on my part, its a function that is beneficial to me, friends and family but yes, I was aiming for a change in law. We still are, the whole lot is now on hold. Do we think we have a case to do so? Most certainly. Do I feel, and its mostly through ignorance, that the present government of this country was unwilling to help? Most definitely.And in any case, it would have been no use approaching the UK government to do so. The law is based on a European Directive. There cannot be any retrospective change to the law that would benefit us, but again our case is on hold as to exactly how the directive was interpreted into UK law. Again, do we think we have a case? Yes, most certainly, but as you well know with any case, the prohibitive costs because of the uncertainty of outcome could be our major, insurmountable stumbling block.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So you're suing the UK state for misimplementing a directive?

Or thinking of it.

[Lord Kangana]

We're awaiting the laborious, long-winded criminal justice system in this country to give us full (read public) disclosure on certain issues before we choose whichever avenue to go down. There are numerous possibilities. And, indeed, potential defendants. That may be one particular course of action, but as I say, we cannot do anything at the moment. The only silver lining on the monumental cloud is that various bodies have accepted there is enough to be "discussed" about our case, and so it remains on hold rather than being subject to time constraints.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Ho ho, I'm hearing rumours...

For Mention
T20127076 HUHNE Christopher
PRYCE Vasiliki
Order made under Contempt of Court Act 1981

[thebish]

I heard a rumour the other day that the Private companies taking over sections of the NHS may not be charged corporation tax... is there any truth in this???

[Porrohman]

Nevermind all that shit...has John Gummer fed his kids some horse burgers or what?

[Lord Kangana]

Anyway, I await being disabused of my sensibilities, but on first pass it seems the proposed pension reform is both long-overdue, necessary and fair. Its something that successive governments have spectacularly failed to tackle since the original f*ck up in the eighties.

Now then, where have I gone wrong?

[Bruce Rioja]

Anyway, I await being disabused of my sensibilities, but on first pass it seems the proposed pension reform is both long-overdue, necessary and fair. Its something that successive governments have spectacularly failed to tackle since the original f*ck up in the eighties.

Now then, where have I gone wrong?

Ah. You seem to have some understanding of it, my good man. Would you, in layman's terms, care to explain it to those of us that don't?

[Lord Kangana]

Well it seems to set a minimum amount that people will receive. In other words, if you've provided decently for yourself already it won't necessarily have you jumping for joy, but it provides a safety net for our elderly. This seems, on the face of it, a good thing.

It seems to clear up the mess of SERPS, and seems to be beneficial for the Self Employed and women in general, two groups in the past who have both traditionally suffered with pension provision. I supose it could be argued that this encourages small business and "entrepeneurship", and also women who are either childcarers or primary carers, and lets be honest, women tend to carry the burden of both of those in the main, at the moment they receive little/nothing.

My hazy understanding also is that it seems that it isn't so much the amount you contribute, but that you do contribute, and over your lifetime. So (again in my understanding!) if you're not well off but work all your life, you'll be entitled to 100% (I think its on a 30/30 basis, at the moment its /40, I think, which will translate to about £144), and means we wouldn't be shelling out to the Aussie backpacker who worked in Londres for 12 months. My understanding is they might be entitled to a 1/30th, though I'm not sure in the detail that there may be a minimum or de minimus that they won't go below or deal with.

As always, I'm awaiting the devilish detail to emerge to see who it harms, but on the face of it it seems a step in the right direction.

[Montreal Wanderer]

If you believed that somebody deliberately and maliciously destroyed your livelihood,

I don't think you understand her motives at all, Prufrock. Of course her actions were deliberate, but how can you show malice? The PM has to make hard decisions to achieve a desired end. Her goals were privatization, low inflation, limiting the power of the unions, etc in order to make Britain economically competitive in the world. We may not believe in those goals or the methods employed, but she was the one who was elected and the one who had a platform.

[Harry Genshaw]

If you believed that somebody deliberately and maliciously destroyed your livelihood,

I don't think you understand her motives at all, Prufrock. Of course her actions were deliberate, but how can you show malice? The PM has to make hard decisions to achieve a desired end. Her goals were privatization, low inflation, limiting the power of the unions, etc in order to make Britain economically competitive in the world. We may not believe in those goals or the methods employed, but she was the one who was elected and the one who had a platform.

Her supporters would argue that it was about making the UK competitive and limiting the power of the unions. I seem to recall Seamus Milne making a persuasive argument that it was malice that motivated her to take on the miners. Same end result though I spose.

[Montreal Wanderer]

If you believed that somebody deliberately and maliciously destroyed your livelihood,

I don't think you understand her motives at all, Prufrock. Of course her actions were deliberate, but how can you show malice? The PM has to make hard decisions to achieve a desired end. Her goals were privatization, low inflation, limiting the power of the unions, etc in order to make Britain economically competitive in the world. We may not believe in those goals or the methods employed, but she was the one who was elected and the one who had a platform.

Her supporters would argue that it was about making the UK competitive and limiting the power of the unions. I seem to recall Seamus Milne making a persuasive argument that it was malice that motivated her to take on the miners. Same end result though I spose.

There are those who would call Milne a left-wing conspiracy theorist. I think the question is did Thatcher take on the unions because she thought their power was destructive to the Britain she envisioned or simply because she did not like workers and their attitude? The former, rightly or wrongly, is a question of belief while the latter would be malicious. We went through a similar retooling in Canada at that time. The powers that be destroyed the furniture making industry and the rag trade as it was thought we could not compete with foreign competition. They concentrated on the development of high tech industries. Montreal is now a leader in aerospace and computer gaming, but the unskilled workers in the garment industry had a hard time making the adjustment. I think the government of the day was correct in the long term, but it didn't lessen the hurt.

I suspect it is also wrong to evaluate Thatcher exclusively on the mining issue.

[Harry Genshaw]

If you believed that somebody deliberately and maliciously destroyed your livelihood,

I don't think you understand her motives at all, Prufrock. Of course her actions were deliberate, but how can you show malice? The PM has to make hard decisions to achieve a desired end. Her goals were privatization, low inflation, limiting the power of the unions, etc in order to make Britain economically competitive in the world. We may not believe in those goals or the methods employed, but she was the one who was elected and the one who had a platform.

Her supporters would argue that it was about making the UK competitive and limiting the power of the unions. I seem to recall Seamus Milne making a persuasive argument that it was malice that motivated her to take on the miners. Same end result though I spose.

There are those who would call Milne a left-wing conspiracy theorist. I think the question is did Thatcher take on the unions because she thought their power was destructive to the Britain she envisioned or simply because she did not like workers and their attitude? The former, rightly or wrongly, is a question of belief while the latter would be malicious. We went through a similar retooling in Canada at that time. The powers that be destroyed the furniture making industry and the rag trade as it was thought we could not compete with foreign competition. They concentrated on the development of high tech industries. Montreal is now a leader in aerospace and computer gaming, but the unskilled workers in the garment industry had a hard time making the adjustment. I think the government of the day was correct in the long term, but it didn't lessen the hurt.

I suspect it is also wrong to evaluate Thatcher exclusively on the mining issue.

True but her attitude to the NUM and her attitude to other Unions in general should be treated seperately imo. There are those who argue that the power of Unions did need to be curbed at that time. There have been suggestions that she picked a fight with the NUM more as retaliation for their action during the Heath Govt than a general curbing of Union power.

[Montreal Wanderer]

If you believed that somebody deliberately and maliciously destroyed your livelihood,

I don't think you understand her motives at all, Prufrock. Of course her actions were deliberate, but how can you show malice? The PM has to make hard decisions to achieve a desired end. Her goals were privatization, low inflation, limiting the power of the unions, etc in order to make Britain economically competitive in the world. We may not believe in those goals or the methods employed, but she was the one who was elected and the one who had a platform.

Her supporters would argue that it was about making the UK competitive and limiting the power of the unions. I seem to recall Seamus Milne making a persuasive argument that it was malice that motivated her to take on the miners. Same end result though I spose.

There are those who would call Milne a left-wing conspiracy theorist. I think the question is did Thatcher take on the unions because she thought their power was destructive to the Britain she envisioned or simply because she did not like workers and their attitude? The former, rightly or wrongly, is a question of belief while the latter would be malicious. We went through a similar retooling in Canada at that time. The powers that be destroyed the furniture making industry and the rag trade as it was thought we could not compete with foreign competition. They concentrated on the development of high tech industries. Montreal is now a leader in aerospace and computer gaming, but the unskilled workers in the garment industry had a hard time making the adjustment. I think the government of the day was correct in the long term, but it didn't lessen the hurt.

I suspect it is also wrong to evaluate Thatcher exclusively on the mining issue.

True but her attitude to the NUM and her attitude to other Unions in general should be treated seperately imo. There are those who argue that the power of Unions did need to be curbed at that time. There have been suggestions that she picked a fight with the NUM more as retaliation for their action during the Heath Govt than a general curbing of Union power.

Certainly the NUM humiliated Heath and Maggie was much better prepared for the strike than Ted. She also won the PR battle as public support for the miners shifted dramatically during the strike.

Public opinion during the strike was divided and varied greatly in different regions. When asked in a Gallup poll in July 1984 whether their sympathies lay mainly with the employers or the miners, 40% said employers; 33% were for the miners; 19% were for neither and 8% did not know. When asked the same question during 5–10 December 1984, 51% had most sympathy for the employers; 26% for the miners; 18% for neither and 5% did not know.[30] When asked in July 1984 whether they approved or disapproved of the methods used by the miners, 15% approved; 79% disapproved and 6% did not know. When asked the same question during 5–10 December 1984, 7% approved; 88% disapproved and 5% did not know.[30] In July 1984, when asked whether they thought the miners were using responsible or irresponsible methods, 12% said responsible; 78% said irresponsible and 10% did not know. When asked the same question in August 1984, 9% said responsible; 84% said irresponsible and 7% did not know.[

[William the White]

I don't wish for the death of human beings, even those as vile as Thatcher.

But I'll certainly not shed a tear... And I'll certainly be glad she's gone... And I may even raise a glass... Thinking of my father made redundant three times in his 50s... Of living in the 'rust belt' of the Black Country, the roofless giant foundries like rotting monuments to broken lives ensnared in poverty, and of the vileness of the Bollinger crew of the City, wallowing in money they'd barely toiled to earn, and setting the scene for the current disaster now afflicting us...

She was a rotten bastard, if there was a hell she'd be roasting...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't wish for the death of human beings, even those as vile as Thatcher.

But I'll certainly not shed a tear... And I'll certainly be glad she's gone... And I may even raise a glass... Thinking of my father made redundant three times in his 50s... Of living in the 'rust belt' of the Black Country, the roofless giant foundries like rotting monuments to broken lives ensnared in poverty, and of the vileness of the Bollinger crew of the City, wallowing in money they'd barely toiled to earn, and setting the scene for the current disaster now afflicting us...

She was a rotten bastard, if there was a hell she'd be roasting...

I wish you'd stop sitting on the fence and say what you think.

[Harry Genshaw]

The Govt certainly won the PR battle during the Miners strike but then they were backed by a largely right wing press. Only years later did the true excesses of the Police and some of their brutal methods fully come out.