The Conservative Party

[Henkeman]

'How much do I want it to go up by?' isn't the approach I would take. I would look at what the country needs in order to provide a decent safety net whereby, if you fell out of work or were a drug addict or ill, you wouldn't have to live on the streets, you'd be helped, and have enough to eat, drink, and not freeze to death. I'd also pay for police, judges, an army, prisons and so on and whatever the cost was, I'd say it was a price worth paying for a civilised society. So those who can pay more would pay more - so yes, everyone would have to pay, including the middle class. How do I persuade people to vote for it? Tell them about all the other examples in the West and how they consistently rank the highest in almost all metrics on happiness, education and welfare, and suggest it might not be a bad idea to follow.

With all due respect, you're avoiding the question somewhat. There are lots of things that we could learn from other European countries, such as why they seem to get better health results for similar money than we do. But you did raise the point about France and higher spending, so in order to have plans to do that, we do need to know how much more is being talked about. How else can we know what to raise?

I'm not asking you for chapter and verse on the public accounts here, but a nebulous "spend more money" argument is a bit meaningless unless it's aligned with a "this is how much you'll pay" equivalent. This is actually the worst part of the current Labour front bench, they rack up commitment after commitment without ever saying how it would realistically be paid for. And for good reason too, they know they'd get killed at the polls.

 

[Fame Monster]

With all due respect, you're avoiding the question somewhat. There are lots of things that we could learn from other European countries, such as why they seem to get better health results for similar money than we do. But you did raise the point about France and higher spending, so in order to have plans to do that, we do need to know how much more is being talked about. How else can we know what to raise?

I'm not asking you for chapter and verse on the public accounts here, but a nebulous "spend more money" argument is a bit meaningless unless it's aligned with a "this is how much you'll pay" equivalent. This is actually the worst part of the current Labour front bench, they rack up commitment after commitment without ever saying how it would realistically be paid for. And for good reason too, they know they'd get killed at the polls.

I can't give you an answer because I don't know. It doesn't make the wider point meaningless.

 

[Henkeman]

I can't give you an answer because I don't know. It doesn't make the wider point meaningless.

Here's where it does. The Tories have already committed additional spending from the improving public finances to most of those things you want. So are you saying you want more? How much more?

The problem is, we'd all like fantastic services, but there are questions over what is a good use of public funds, how well it is spent, and yes absolutely the political question of where it ought to go. The meaningless bit is that your range of comment could mean deep approval of what the Tories are doing, and I'm guessing that's not how you want it to be seen.

So presumably you're talking about substantially more money aren't you? Ok. That really does mean substantially more tax to pay for it. Or borrow. Which is dangerous right now for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[hilts]

This actually annoys me whoever in Parliament it's aimed at. These people can earn a damn sight more out of Parliament than they ever could inside it, and an MP's salary is simply not especially impressive for a professional person.

The vast majority of people (from all parties) go into Parliament for the best of reasons, whether you agree with their politics or not. Sure, there are charlatans, as there are in every walk of life, but most just want to make a difference and improve the country. The compromises required of a Parliamentary career soon knocks the idealism out of them, but I won't have it that they're there for money. It's pretty miserable for a start, and that most people think £75k is a year is a lot is beside the point - it isn't for the kind of people we want in there.

There is only one problem with this if someone gets into politics to help people when they could earn more elsewhere, and the idealism gets knocked out of them, why not quit and go earn more money elsewhere?

Anybody that will lie because someone in the party told them to is not a idealistic person. Most politicians I see spin lies on behalf of their party. I will not have any respect for them even though I understand the games they play. If you’re in politics long enough with consultant roles and the trough of the EU and the Lords you can make plenty of money. You don’t even have to be any good.

 

[Chippy_boy]

There is only one problem with this if someone gets into politics to help people when they could earn more elsewhere, and the idealism gets knocked out of them, why not quit and go earn more money elsewhere?

Anybody that will lie because someone in the party told them to is not a idealistic person. Most politicians I see spin lies on behalf of their party. I will not have any respect for them even though I understand the games they play. If you’re in politics long enough with consultant roles and the trough of the EU and the Lords you can make plenty of money. You don’t even have to be any good.

There's 650 MPs. I wonder how many of them have you heard say anything at all, about anything? 50? 100?

The vast majority of MPs are decent, hardworking, honest, normal people. It would be pretty bloody bizarre, wouldn't it if there was some magical filter that meant that if you are a normal, decent, hardworking person, you never get to be an MP. Doesn't make sense.

What you see is the few who end up being on Question Time and the like, and yes they get told to tow the party line on various topics. And some of them are slimeballs who have climbed the greasy pole through manoeuvring and backstabbing. Just like in any workplace. But I refuse to accept that MPs as a whole are a breed apart - they are just people. And on average, I'd say they are pretty decent people actually.

 

[hilts]

There's 650 MPs. I wonder how many of them have you heard say anything at all, about anything? 50? 100?

The vast majority of MPs are decent, hardworking, honest, normal people. It would be pretty bloody bizarre, wouldn't it if there was some magical filter that meant that if you are a normal, decent, hardworking person, you never get to be an MP. Doesn't make sense.

What you see is the few who end up being on Question Time and the like, and yes they get told to tow the party line on various topics. And some of them are slimeballs who have climbed the greasy pole through manoeuvring and backstabbing. Just like in any workplace. But I refuse to accept that MPs as a whole are a breed apart - they are just people. And on average, I'd say they are pretty decent people actually.

Flip that bizarre argument on its head, if I haven’t listened to all 650 MPs so can’t possible make a statement then neither can you. So your rather cringy description of them must be a wild guess. Unfortunately i have the way they vote to back up my assessment. You have nothing.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Flip that bizarre argument on its head, if I haven’t listened to all 650 MPs so can’t possible make a statement then neither can you. So your rather cringy description of them must be a wild guess. Unfortunately i have the way they vote to back up my assessment. You have nothing.

You've no idea what I have.

What I do have is my own experience of the MPs I've known, and the anecdotal experience of various other people who also know and have known their own MPs. Most people find what I suggested above.

 

[hilts]

You've no idea what I have.

What I do have is my own experience of the MPs I've known, and the anecdotal experience of various other people who also know and have known their own MPs. Most people find what I suggested above.

Bloody hell mate no wonder you’re worried about finances, that number of MPs you know and all the people that know other MPs(presume this must be a fair few people who have recommended each mp to get a fair view)

That Xmas card bill you have must be huge.

Edit .

I’ve sussed it you’re John Bercow and I claim my prize.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Bloody hell mate no wonder you’re worried about finances, that number of MPs you know and all the people that know other MPs(presume this must be a fair few people who have recommended each mp to get a fair view)

That Xmas card bill you have must be huge.

Edit .

I’ve sussed it you’re John Bercow and I claim my prize.

Have you ever met or spoken to your MP? Just as a matter of interest? You might find it quite enlightening. My local MP for many years was Steve Webb - a LibDem. He was a bloody excellent MP, I have to say. The amount of work he did for the local community was first rate. He always replied courteously to letters, always acted upon whatever you requested, always followed up. I had the then Minister for Sport, Gerry Sutcliffe write to me personally about the conflict of interest when David Gill was on the board of the FA. Nothing was done mind, but at least Steve tried.

Perhaps if you took your "they're all a bunch of ****s" hat off for 10 minutes, you might be a bit enlightened.

 

[hilts]

Have you ever met or spoken to your MP? Just as a matter of interest? You might find it quite enlightening. My local MP for many years was Steve Webb - a LibDem. He was a bloody excellent MP, I have to say. The amount of work he did for the local community was first rate. He always replied courteously to letters, always acted upon whatever you requested, always followed up. I had the then Minister for Sport, Gerry Sutcliffe write to me personally about the conflict of interest when David Gill was on the board of the FA. Nothing was done mind, but at least Steve tried.

Perhaps if you took your "they're all a bunch of ****s" hat off for 10 minutes, you might be a bit enlightened.

You may find the true answer is somewhere between our opposing views but a tad more in my favour.

Maybe the good ones don't get or want the top jobs? Maybe they see what they will become? Either way the voting patterns are not what I would expect from a free thinking parliament.

 

[inbetween]

You may find the true answer is somewhere between our opposing views but a tad more in my favour.

Maybe the good ones don't get or want the top jobs? Maybe they see what they will become? Either way the voting patterns are not what I would expect from a free thinking parliament.

Our MP is the deputy speaker (Lindsay Hoyle) and he is brilliant, met him once in my old job and he is a top bloke. If I had still been living there he would make me think twice about voting for Labour, I'd vote for him anyday although this Labour now I am not sure.

We moved recently and now have a tory MP who isn't great but she seems to do very well locally as she increased her vote last time. The alternative Labour momentum candidate was however worse.

Basically direct democracy is not a thing, you vote for an MP but you vote for them to represent you in Parliament and not to do exactly as you say in Parliament.

The greater good of the country will always come first and that is the purpose of having a party containing MP's which gives you a government. Without a consensus of MP's you do not have a government.

 

[dave_blue12]

How deep in roubles is the Conservative party ?

Tory peers told to come clean about Russia links

The security minister has turned down a meeting with a Tory peer who has financial links to Moscow amid fears about Russian influence and lobbying in parliament, The Times can reveal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/12f1f1d0-d713-11e8-9c20-5eb2e7b96a26

Honestly I think so many politicians in this country are scrabbling around in the gutter. For so many of them money and power are what it's all about.

Yes, I'm sure there are principled politicians in this country but when lying and deceit are accepted norms it's very hard to have any faith.

BTW - the Culture Sec. has refused to answer the DCM & S C'tee's questions on the Govt's relationship with AIQ/Cambridge Analytica this afternoon

 

[bluethrunthru]

The Nasty Party have been at it again - Javid apologising for the Home Office acting in a manner against their OWN guidelines by saying in order to stay in this country the families of Gurkha ex-soldiers and Afghan ex-interpreters had to take DNA tests to prove who they were.

 

[Damocles]

The Nasty Party have been at it again - Javid apologising for the Home Office acting in a manner against their OWN guidelines by saying in order to stay in this country the families of Gurkha ex-soldiers and Afghan ex-interpreters had to take DNA tests to prove who they were.

I'm not 100% on this but I'm fairly sure that DNA testing is part of almost every immigration policy in all the major developed nations.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I'm not 100% on this but I'm fairly sure that DNA testing is part of almost every immigration policy in all the major developed nations.

To prove eligibility they are asked to produce all sorts - birth certificates, death certificates of parents and grand parents, passports, sworn affidavits the lot - it suits for say an Italian banker coming to work in the City yet somehow for the dependants of Gurkha's and those for Afghan interpreters who all put their lives on the line for this country suddenly DNA was needed - perhaps they were the wrong colour or the wrong religion? Sajid Javid said nobody needs to give DNA to gain the leave to stay here and its against Home Office policy however on the back of the recent Windrush Scandal this is something too that goes back at least 3 years to the time when Mayday was HS with her hostile environment approach. Furthermore there is already a suggestion that Javid's suggestion that under 100 people were tested is based on Home Office reports that 83 people were refused because of this but in fact 449 requests for DNA were made in total.

After 200 years in service to the British military the way we have treated Gurkha's and their families in the last 5 years or so ( think Joanna Lumley ) some heads need to be hung in fucking shame.

 

[Damocles]

To prove eligibility they are asked to produce all sorts - birth certificates, death certificates of parents and grand parents, passports, sworn affidavits the lot - it suits for say an Italian banker coming to work in the City yet somehow for the dependants of Gurkha's and those for Afghan interpreters who all put their lives on the line for this country suddenly DNA was needed - perhaps they were the wrong colour or the wrong religion?

Or perhaps the civil servants were following established procedure that didn't take into account extraordinary cases such as the Gurkha's and instead followed the same rules as they do for everybody else?

Y'know, rather than being massive racists for apparently no reason at all?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Or perhaps the civil servants were following established procedure that didn't take into account extraordinary cases such as the Gurkha's and instead followed the same rules as they do for everybody else?

Y'know, rather than being massive racists for apparently no reason at all?

Nope - unless Sajid Javid was misleading Parliament? He apologised and said its against HO guidelines.

 

[BobKowalski]

Or perhaps the civil servants were following established procedure that didn't take into account extraordinary cases such as the Gurkha's and instead followed the same rules as they do for everybody else?

Y'know, rather than being massive racists for apparently no reason at all?

The guidelines for DNA testing were incorrectly appplied in the case of the Gurkhas. For Afghan nationals there was a requirement in place that has now been scrapped.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45979359

 

[Damocles]

Nope - unless Sajid Javid was misleading Parliament? He apologised and said its against HO guidelines.

So in your mind, how was this implemented?

Was there a memo sent out to the hundreds of civil servants involved in these cases titled "Dodging the Darkies" or something? Who sent it? Where was this policy made up and by who? There weren't any BAME people in the civil service or white liberals who thought this bad enough to blow the whistle over?

Like on a person to person level, how does this work? Nuts and bolts.

This is why I'm getting more and more pissed with a lot of my left wing friends - literally everything is a racist plot somehow.

 

[bluethrunthru]

So in your mind, how was this implemented?

Was there a memo sent out to the hundreds of civil servants involved in these cases titled "Dodging the Darkies" or something? Who sent it? Where was this policy made up and by who? There weren't any BAME people in the civil service or white liberals who thought this bad enough to blow the whistle over?

Like on a person to person level, how does this work? Nuts and bolts.

This is why I'm getting more and more pissed with a lot of my left wing friends - literally everything is a racist plot somehow.

well - I can only quote what Javid said and has been reported in the media but the nuts and bolts are that - amongst others - relatives and families of Gurkha and Afghan interpreters applied for leave to stay with the former serving soldier/interpreter. As well as providing all the usual proofs they were sent letters telling them that they must provide DNA samples to prove relationships. That was not HO policy, was against HO guidelines and in any event wasn't absolute proof in that the "father" had to provide DNA and that wasn't always possible. Therefore further letters were sent telling the participants to do one as they didn't qualify. There was one report on the news tonight where a soldiers Vietnamese wife and son - son BORN in the UK - the son cannot get a passport because his mum and dad are now estranged and his dad won't supply a DNA sample.

Now all this dates back to the period when Mayday was HS. She implemented the "hostile environment" and sent those "go home" vans around London - targeting particular areas btw, I doubt none made their way to Chelsea or Notting Hill, and from that came these yes racist plots from within the HO. I have no idea as to the ethnic, political, religious or political make up of those working in the HO at the time but that is what happened. Why didn't someone report it? No idea. That fact is just another reason to question what was going on at that time. The simple facts appear to be that for you and me in that position forms, affidavits, FB posts etc were deemed adequate proof but if you had an Afghan or Nepalese name DNA was needed. What is also interesting is nowhere has anyone said this DNA was actually tested and "used in evidence". Fucking disgrace. If you were a Nepalese bearing in mind what has happened in recent years would you be spurred on to join our Army. If you were liberated by our troops knowing what is in the public domain would you think the promise of resettlement and support post conflict was sound enough for you to be an interpreter?