Support NeoGAF

[dapperbandit]

An interesting thing came up on Question Time where someone called Farage out for criticising Saudi Arabia but seeking to cosy up with that other repressive regime bombing civilians and exerting malign influence overseas.

Well, that hypocrisy flows both ways.

 

[Uzzy]

Reality would too, the issue is that Boris is doubling down on a very public split from the Government line only a few months into his new job.

For sure. The Saudi Government is a really quite evil organisation, and we shouldn't be cosying up to them so much. But the correct place for our Foreign Minister to raise those concerns is in cabinet meetings, not in public.

 

[Empty]

that he's correct is surely completely irrelevant. it's literally his job as foreign secretary to suppress his personal opinions to best achieve the diplomatic goals of the government.

it's like if the queen came out and called out a political decision by the government, it's her job not to have a personal public opinion.

if he doesn't agree with the position on saudi arabia he's entirely with his right to discuss that privately in personal meetings with may and in cabinet discussions, and if he's reached an impasse on the issue then he can resign from the government over it like iain duncan smith or robin cook.

boris is comically unsuited for any serious job

 

[JonnyDBrit]

So, it would appear we still have some baseline for sanity in this country:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286708

I mean, one wonders if they'd have been this decisive with a far larger organisation, but its at least something.

 

[Beefy]

So, it would appear we still have some baseline for sanity in this country:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38286708

I mean, one wonders if they'd have been this decisive with a far larger organisation, but its at least something.

Take that America

 

[Corum]

Even Ed Balls can't save us:

ICM poll gives Tories 14-pt lead over Labour - and having Balls as Labour lead would make little difference

 

[dapperbandit]

Diane Abbott's recent interview on the Marr show illustrates labour's problems perfectly. Their messaging is awful right now, they're tripping each other up with contrasting statements concerning Brexit and even if they all were saying the same thing, what's their hook? If you're pro leave, why not back the Tories? If you're dead against Brexit there's the Lib Dems.

As far as I can tell the cornerstone of Labour policy concerning Brexit is reluctantly respecting the voter's choice.

 

[Beefy]

Made a thread but it died quick so will post in here.



Drugs firm Actavis UK overcharged the NHS by hiking the price of a life-saving drug by more than 12,000%, the competition watchdog alleges.

It said the amount charged for 10mg hydrocortisone tablets rose to £88 per pack by March 2016 from 70p when a branded version of the drug was sold by a different company prior to April 2008.

There was also a 9,500% increase for 20mg tablets, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said.

The watchdog claimed that Actavis - formerly known as Auden McKenzie - broke competition law by charging "excessive and unfair prices".

Teva, the Israeli-based company that recently acquired the company, said it "intends to defend the allegations".

The CMA's provisional findings come a week after it fined US giant Pfizer and distributor Flynn Pharma a total of nearly £90m in a separate overcharging case. Both firms dispute the CMA's conclusions.

Hydrocortisone tablets are used to treat people who suffer from conditions where their adrenal glands do not produce enough natural steroid hormones, such as Addison's disease - which is life threatening.

More than 900,000 packs of hydrocortisone tablets were dispensed in 2015 and NHS spending on these drugs had climbed to £70m - up from £522,000 prior to April 2008.

The case, like others, centres on the way drugs companies can charge more for generic or de-branded drugs because, unlike branded drugs, they are not subject to price regulation.

Andrew Groves, CMA senior responsible officer, said: "This is a lifesaving drug relied on by thousands of patients, which the NHS has no choice but to continue purchasing.

"We allege that the company has taken advantage of this situation and the removal of the drug from price regulation, leaving the NHS - and ultimately the taxpayer - footing the bill for the substantial price rises."

The CMA said its findings, after a nine-month probe, were provisional and that no conclusion should be drawn at this stage that there has in fact been any breach of competition law.

It has the power to fine firms found to have broken the rules up to 10% of annual worldwide group turnover.


http://news.sky.com/story/firm-accus...12000-10697728

Disgusting, hope they get sued. It'll end up being for a pittance though.

 

[Uzzy]

Half of all flood defence money earmarked for London and the Thames Estuary.

I don't doubt that they need help protecting houses around there, but I guess the rest of the county just isn't as important.

 

[Zaph]

Half of all flood defence money earmarked for London and the Thames Estuary.

I don't doubt that they need help protecting houses around there, but I guess the rest of the county just isn't as important.

I'm utterly biased, but given the density of London and proximity of the Thames, I imagine every £1 spent here protects more houses compared to anywhere else in England. Ideally everywhere would get the protection required, but budgets can't ignore value for money just because some parts of the country resents London.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

I'm utterly biased, but given the density of London and proximity of the Thames, I imagine every £1 spent here protects more houses compared to anywhere else in England. Ideally everywhere would get the protection required, but budgets can't ignore value for money just because some parts of the country resents London.

Sure, but Somerset has flooded badly twice in the last three years. This isn't a hypothetical, it keeps happening because nothing is done each time.
It'll happen again by 2021.

In other news: Nigel Farage accuses Jo Cox's widower of supporting extremism.

 

[phisheep]

Half of all flood defence money earmarked for London and the Thames Estuary.

I don't doubt that they need help protecting houses around there, but I guess the rest of the county just isn't as important.

Bit of a non-story I think.

There's little that can be done to defend against flooding on, say the Somerset Levels or around Tewkesbury. And what little can be done (like dredging the Parrett) isn't very expensive (it's just that they hadn't done it, rather than the cost being prohibitive). And in more coastal areas there are already fairly plentiful defences - here we had one lot put in in about 1985 after a big flood, and another lot about 3-4 years back before any flooding has actually happened - and after they are in place, they don't need a lot of maintenance being as they are designed to put up with an awful lot of seawater.

Sure, there's probably more should be done in the way of flood relief - and the response to the last Somerset flooding was shamefully bad - but I guess that's not the same budget.

 

[Jezbollah]

It looks like we may have another by-election on the way - seems that Jamie Reed (Lab, Copeland) will resign today, he had a majority of 2564 (6.5%) in 2015.

Edit: Confirmed https://www.theguardian.com/politic...abour-mp-byelection-copeland?CMP=share_btn_tw

The Tories will be looking forward to this I think.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

It looks like we may have another by-election on the way - seems that Jamie Reed (Lab, Copeland) will resign today, he had a majority of 2564 (6.5%) in 2015.

Edit: Confirmed https://www.theguardian.com/politic...abour-mp-byelection-copeland?CMP=share_btn_tw

The Tories will be looking forward to this I think.

38% of people in Copeland voted to remain in the EU.

Will be interesting to see whether the Lib Dems make a push for this seat. With Labour, Conservatives and UKIP both strong, perhaps there's a chance of leapfrogging at least one of them. Greens should bow out, no chance of winning here (area relies heavily on nuclear for employment). The other interesting thing will be who runs for Labour. Will it be someone to the right of the party (as Reed is), or will they select someone more in-line with Corbyn and the members?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Looks like a Conservative gain, at face value - 63% Leave and Conservative + UKIP beat Labour in 2015 anyway; just that voter base has been split between two parties. If there is some notion of liberal co-operation, then it probably needs to start here - very much hoping that either the Greens and Lib Dems don't stand a candidate, or, if they do, basically only campaign in the way Labour did in Richmond (not at all).

 

[Jezbollah]

38% of people in Copeland voted to remain in the EU.

Will be interesting to see whether the Lib Dems make a push for this seat. With Labour, Conservatives and UKIP both strong, perhaps there's a chance of leapfrogging at least one of them. Greens should bow out, no chance of winning here (area relies heavily on nuclear for employment). The other interesting thing will be who runs for Labour. Will it be someone to the right of the party (as Reed is), or will they select someone more in-line with Corbyn and the members?

Yep this will be quite the litmus test for Conservatives in the north parking their bus in the "we're the party that you should support if you voted Leave" camp. The majority is small, the constituency voted leave pretty hard.. It'll be interesting to see how the LDs do.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If the Liberal Democrats do well, then the Conservatives will win the seat. I mean, bluntly part, the entire British political system is crystallising around whether you're pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit. Anything else is a secondary concern. UKIP and the Conservatives together will get about 63% of the vote. Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will get about 37% of the vote (I know Labour's official position is soft Brexit, but nobody actually believes them - they're considered a de facto Remain party, which is one of their big problems). Labour has an institutional advantage in Copeland which means they'll probably be the biggest Remain party. Ergo, the better the Liberal Democrats do the worse Labour will do, ergo, the more likely the Conservatives win.

So I'm not actually sure that Liberal Democrat performance will tell us much. If I was a Liberal Democrat in Copeland, I'd be, at the very least, refusing to vote if my party stood a candidate, or even tacitly helping the Labour candidate campaign like the local Labour Party did for the Liberal Democrats in Richmond. What's the point of going after a seat you can't win when making an effort would also likely increase the chances of Leave MPs? The Liberal Democrats doing poorly in Copeland specifically just tells us that their party members value Remain over partisan branding, which probably actually means the Liberal Democrats, from a national perspective, should do quite well, because it implies that if people value Remain over partisan branding, in other constituencies the flow should be Labour -> Liberal Democrats.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

Looks like a Conservative gain, at face value - 63% Leave and Conservative + UKIP beat Labour in 2015 anyway; just that voter base has been split between two parties. If there is some notion of liberal co-operation, then it probably needs to start here - very much hoping that either the Greens and Lib Dems don't stand a candidate, or, if they do, basically only campaign in the way Labour did in Richmond (not at all).

The progressive alliance began in Richmond Park. Regarding a wider alliance (which would probably be needed to win here), the Labour Party seemingly has no intent on becoming a part of it - and at any rate, they seem diametrically opposed to the Lib Dems in nearly all areas. Under Corbyn, the Labour Party is authoritarian, pro-Brexit, pro-nationalisation of industry, economically to the left. Under Farron, the Lib Dems are socially liberal, anti-Brexit, economically to the centre. The Greens are at least socially liberal and anti-Brexit.

I do hope the Lib Dems try to contest this though. With the vote split between Conservatives, Labour and UKIP, the 38% - if they could get them on side and out to the polls - would almost certainly be enough to win the seat.

If the Liberal Democrats do well, then the Conservatives will win the seat. I mean, bluntly part, the entire British political system is crystallising around whether you're pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit. Anything else is a secondary concern. UKIP and the Conservatives together will get about 63% of the vote. Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will get about 37% of the vote (I know Labour's official position is soft Brexit, but nobody actually believes them - they're considered a de facto Remain party, which is one of their big problems). Labour has an institutional advantage in Copeland which means they'll probably be the biggest Remain party. Ergo, the better the Liberal Democrats do the worse Labour will do, ergo, the more likely the Conservatives win.

So I'm not actually sure that Liberal Democrat performance will tell us much. If I was a Liberal Democrat in Copeland, I'd be, at the very least, refusing to vote if my party stood a candidate, or even tacitly helping the Labour candidate campaign like the local Labour Party did for the Liberal Democrats in Richmond. What's the point of going after a seat you can't win when making an effort would also likely increase the chances of Leave MPs? The Liberal Democrats doing poorly in Copeland specifically just tells us that their party members value Remain over partisan branding, which probably actually means the Liberal Democrats, from a national perspective, should do quite well, because it implies that if people value Remain over partisan branding, in other constituencies the flow should be Labour -> Liberal Democrats.

You've identified the problem for Lib Dem voters here though, and it's probably an impossible hurdle to overcome. Lib Dems know Labour are pro-Brexit. If the Conservatives get in then it's another seat for Brexit. If Labour gets in its another seat for Brexit. Lib Dems can't hold their nose here, because the biggest issue for the party right now is Brexit. It would be akin to asking Green Party voters to rally behind a man who wants to open a new coal power plant - it's just not going to happen. If Lib Dems didn't put up a candidate, their supporters wouldn't vote Labour, because Labour = Brexit. They're more likely to stay at home.

The only potential solution I can think of is that Labour puts up a pro-Remain candidate... but in this constituency, against this opposition - with this leader? No chance.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Labour's not "pro"-Brexit, though. The majority of Labour MPs backed Remain. If they could secretly decide what happened and not be held accountable for it, they'd still back Remain. Right now, though, they know that outside of London, over 80% of Labour seats backed Leave. If they don't at least look partially responsive, then they will lose those seats - it would be a wipe-out. Labour would be reduced to a Londoner's party (well, also some other big urban centres like Manchester and Liverpool, but you get the picture). So their rhetoric is: really soft Brexit, as soft as we can make it, please. It is an attempt to bridge the gap between their Remain voters and their Leave voters. If public opinion started changing dramatically, Labour would be back on Remain like a flash; they're itching to do it as it is.

This seat is a two-way race. It will be Labour or the Conservatives who will win, barring an unprecedented swing even bigger than Richmond (and if that did happen, it would be UKIP that won, not the Lib Dems). Whoever wins will have their public narrative enforced, the same way Richmond emphasized the importance of Remain. There are three narratives here:

UKIP's "Brexit needs to happen immediately";
the Conservative's "people voted for a steady hand that will ensure some sort of Brexit of some sort of variety, preferably red, white, and blue; fuck if we know"
Labour's "soft Brexit. real soft. soft as you like. And while we're at it, let's take a really, really long time to scrutinize Article 50 and make sure the public see negotiations"

If the Liberal Democrats choose to thumb their nose at the last of those options, which makes a referendum much more likely because a more heavily scrutinized Article 50 is more likely to turn up the shitstorms that turn public opinion towards a second referendum, and end up giving power to the first of them, which kills any progress towards delaying or even stopping Brexit altogether, they will receive my fullest contempt.

 

[Maledict]

Not sure why you think labour didn't campaign for Richmond Crab. I was bombarded with details about the campaign, and numerous door knocking exercises. Local labour voters switched to lib dems, but the party was damn well trying its hardest.

Labour has such an intrinsic dislike of the idea of a 'progressive alliance'z. I've said before, I know several labour politicians who hate the libs more than the tories.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Not sure why you think labour didn't campaign for Richmond Crab. I was bombarded with details about the campaign, and numerous door knocking exercises. Local labour voters switched to lib dems, but the party was damn well trying its hardest.

Labour party central, who fucked up. Labour party locally was the exact opposite. I know local Labour activists there who door-to-doored with Lib Dem leaflets.

Labour has such an intrinsic dislike of the idea of a 'progressive alliance'z. I've said before, I know several labour politicians who hate the libs more than the tories.

Mostly the former generation. Lisa Nandy, Keir Starmer, Clive Lewis - they're all receptive to it. Lisa Nandy wrote a whole book on why Labour should work with the Liberal Democrats.

And I can't blame Labour for having a certain distaste for the Liberal Democrats. In a FPTP system, their entire purpose is to act as a spoiler to the two main parties, and mostly to Labour at that. If the Liberals had ceased to exist after the Second World War and the SDP had never split away, then I am confident we would have seen a more liberal policy implementation in this country than the status quo. That is, Liberal Democrat policy initiatives would have been more likely if there had been no Liberal Democrats.

Mind, this isn't to say I dislike the Liberal Democrats or their policies. I don't. I desperately want PR, hate Labour's more authoritarian tendencies, am a pro-Remainer, and so on. I just view them the same way I do Corbyn: they fundamentally do not understand the electoral system within which they operate. For example, do you know what, functionally, would be the best thing that any Liberal Democrat member could do now? It would be to resign on mass, all join the Labour Party, and elect a centrist-liberal Labour MP as the leader. Instantly, you'd have an unopposed centrist-liberal party on the left.

I mean, if I were to be a Lib Dem, there would only be one thing I'd care about: PR. Nothing else. If Labour offered PR, I would quit and join Labour. If Labour didn't offer PR, then I would be a Lib Dem and try and force as many Labour losses as possible until they accepted PR. Once PR is in place, then suddenly smaller parties have a viable political role. But the actual Liberal Democrats fucked this up in 2010. I think it is difficult to overstate how much of a gigantic dropping of the ball this was, and how obvious a failing it was at that. You get your one shot in the post-war era and you absolutely screw the pooch in every way possible. Just unimpressed.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Given the insignificance of a single pro-Remain MP being in parliament, I'd argue that for a Lib Dem supporter, seeing their party do well (even if they don't win) might outweigh the benefit of a Labour win, in terms of exciting the base a bit.

Lisa Nandy wrote a whole book on why Labour should work with the Liberal Democrats.

I bet that's a fucking page turner.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Given the insignificance of a single pro-Remain MP being in parliament, I'd argue that for a Lib Dem supporter, seeing their party do well (even if they don't win) might outweigh the benefit of a Labour win, in terms of exciting the base a bit.

If the Conservatives win, the narrative won't be "ooh, the Liberal Democrats did quite well, though!". It will be "ORDINARY BRITISH BLOKES FROM NORTH WANT BREXIT, WILL OF THE PEOPLE, EX-OLYMPIC GAY FENCERS BEWARE".

 

[CyclopsRock]

If the Conservatives win, the narrative won't be "ooh, the Liberal Democrats did quite well, though!". It will be "ORDINARY BRITISH BLOKES FROM NORTH WANT BREXIT, WILL OF THE PEOPLE, EX-OLYMPIC GAY FENCERS BEWARE".

For sure, but for your Lib Dem on-the-ground nutter, it'll be two by-elections in a row with a big swing in their direction and they may start to think "Hey, maybe we're not doomed."

 

[Deleted member 231381]

For sure, but for your Lib Dem on-the-ground nutter, it'll be two by-elections in a row with a big swing in their direction and they may start to think "Hey, maybe we're not doomed."

They think that anyway just through council election results - the number of Liberal Democrats you get trying to explain why winning Eastthorpe local council by-election means they're going to stop Brexit by next year is already too high. I'm not sure the marginal gain of feeding Liberal Democrat activists more self-esteem is worth the national cost of enhancing the Brexit narrative.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

For sure, but for your Lib Dem on-the-ground nutter, it'll be two by-elections in a row with a big swing in their direction and they may start to think "Hey, maybe we're not doomed."

Forgetting Sleaford and North Hykeham? Sure they leapfrogged Labour and doubled their share, but that only amounted to 100 votes more than 2015.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I bet that's a fucking page turner.

Honestly, it's actually quite interesting because it approached the question from a historical perspective not a strategic one (at least primarily). There's two chapters in there on the tacit Blair-Ashdown co-operation which I'd not seen much about before and were genuinely interesting. It was surprisingly blunt, too - the honesty of a politician who doesn't expect to win much, I suppose.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They think that anyway just through council election results - the number of Liberal Democrats you get trying to explain why winning Eastthorpe local council by-election means they're going to stop Brexit by next year is already too high. I'm not sure the marginal gain of feeding Liberal Democrat activists more self-esteem is worth the national cost of enhancing the Brexit narrative.

Forgetting Sleaford and North Hykeham? Sure they leapfrogged Labour and doubled their share, but that only amounted to 100 votes more than 2015.

I'm not saying that it's a good idea or tactically astute for them, but I can see it being more appealing than letting Labour win. The Lib Dems are the political equivalent of Liverpool.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not saying that it's a good idea or tactically astute for them, but I can see it being more appealing than letting Labour win. The Lib Dems are the political equivalent of Liverpool.

...that's one of the best analogies I've ever heard and I retract all arguments.

I suppose that makes the Conservatives Chelsea (arseholes largely winning through foreign money pulses), and Labour must be Arsenal (resigned to their position). UKIP are Spurs or something (also-ran).

 

[CyclopsRock]

...that's one of the best analogies I've ever heard and I retract all arguments.

I suppose that makes the Conservatives Chelsea (arseholes largely winning through foreign money pulses), and Labour must be Arsenal (resigned to their position). UKIP are Spurs or something (also-ran).

I think we're onto something... Chelsea are bankrolled by dodgy business associations and buy their way to success, Labour had a period in the 90's where they were "the invincibles" but have fallen on hard times as of late due to poor management, every year is Liverpool's turning-point year and UKIP are the hammers, because they make gas-chamber noises at the Jews.... ? The SNP are Celtic as they've had significant success recently and you can get your throat slit for saying you don't support them in the wrong bit of Glasgow, and the Greens are "A3 Milan", the under-9's sunday league team who train on a park next to the A3 near Tolworth.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

oh my god A3 Milan are a real team

 

[CyclopsRock]

oh my god A3 Milan are a real team

Oh yeah, I was in the same league as them when I was a kid (playing for Alfa Athletic, cleverly named so we would be at the start of the annual photo album). And they trained on a field off the A3 in Tolworth.

 

[Jezbollah]

hmmm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sive-alliance-liberal-democrats-a7489891.html

Corbyn would whip his party into a repeal of the FTPA if it happened.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

hmmm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sive-alliance-liberal-democrats-a7489891.html

Corbyn would whip his party into a repeal of the FTPA if it happened.

Not too surprising, even if the loss is inevitable it'd look super weak to not even give it a shot.

Again though, can't really see the benefit for the government to call an early election. An extra stamp of authority on any moves they make would be nice but it isn't like any questions on May's power have stopped her so far. Plus with the tumultuousness of voting as as of late even with polls as they are it could be more of gamble then they'd like to play.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Not surprised. I mean, the Conservatives can repeal the FPTA themselves if they can keep the rebels to a minimum, so Labour has to be prepared for an early general election anyway. May as well put a brave face on it.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Tactically I don't see why May wouldn't just table a repeal of it now. She doesn't have to "use it", as it were, but as far as I can see there are no negatives for the Tories to getting rid of it, and it keeps the opposition (ha) on its toes. Like the whole "I can punch you whenever I want but I won't tell you when I'm gonna do it" thing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Tactically I don't see why May wouldn't just table a repeal of it now. She doesn't have to "use it", as it were, but as far as I can see there are no negatives for the Tories to getting rid of it, and it keeps the opposition (ha) on its toes. Like the whole "I can punch you whenever I want but I won't tell you when I'm gonna do it" thing.

I'm not sure she actually does want one. Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

 

[Maledict]

I'm not sure she actually does want one. Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

Yep, and if she repealed it then regardless of what her actual intentions were the press would read it as starting the firing gun for the general election. If she then didn't announce an election, she'd suffer the same problems Brown did when he bottled it.

 

[JonathanEx]

Also if she held an election she might need a plan. I'm not sure a manifesto of 'Brexit means Brexit' would work



Hahaha of course it would, I mean she apparently wouldn't tell the Queen any more than that so what chance do us mere plebs have of hearing a plan.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not suggesting she should actually call an election (though I don't think it's a terrible idea) but rather remove the barrier now when it would be relatively easy to do, freeing her from the shackles should it be trickier in the future (potential risk scenario : economy dips, unemployment rises, negotiations going poorly, by elections eat away at tiny majority, pressure rising - repealing FTA then would give something of a headstart to Labour and continue the narrative that she's under the cosh). I think she can wave away the repeal with "it's a relic from coalition that we don't need any more, politics doesn't run on neat 5 year cycles and nor should the government."

 

[Mr. Sam]

Give Labour all the headstart you want, it doesn't matter when they have to run the race with two broken legs. What are the Tories realistically worried about now? "Oh no, the Lib Dems might have a few more seats opposite our inevitable huge majority!"? Theresa May could soil herself live on BBC Parliament and it wouldn't shift the needle.

 

[Uzzy]

Also if she held an election she might need a plan. I'm not sure a manifesto of 'Brexit means Brexit' would work



Hahaha of course it would, I mean she apparently wouldn't tell the Queen any more than that so what chance do us mere plebs have of hearing a plan.

The £8b of welfare cuts was just the start. The next manifesto will just be a picture of May stamping on a migrants face - forever.

 

[Jezbollah]

I have a feeling she's waiting for the boundary changes to go through first.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Give Labour all the headstart you want, it doesn't matter when they have to run the race with two broken legs. What are the Tories realistically worried about now? "Oh no, the Lib Dems might have a few more seats opposite our inevitable huge majority!"? Theresa May could soil herself live on BBC Parliament and it wouldn't shift the needle.

It'd sure get my needle shifting.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It'd sure get my needle shifting.

It is easier for a politician to shit through the eye of the needle than it is for the rich man to enter heaven.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is easier for a politician to shit through the eye of the needle than it is for the rich man to enter heaven.

My needle is tiny

 

[Beefy]

 

[Jezbollah]

Yep, this doesn't surprise me - I remember seeing this article on the same subject a few years back. And I suspect it'll only get worse with the new laws coming in..

 

[CyclopsRock]

Surely it must cost councils more to do all that super spy shit than it recoups in lost revenue and fines?

 

[Maledict]

Surely it must cost councils more to do all that super spy shit than it recoups in lost revenue and fines?

Meh. I'll be the defender of right wing authoritarianism for once... ;-)

All councils generally will have some movable CCTV cameras - either units that can be put up for months at a time, or CCTV on cards that go round the borough. You use them for crime prevention at the request of the police, or for controlling your parking for example. Relocating one isn't very expensive, nor is it that difficult to tell a card to go round a certain spot once a day.

In terms of the "massive spy networks councils have" - well duh. It's what 99%+ of the population wants. For example, if someone is fly-tipping at the end of your street, its a real issue for you - and the only realistic way to stop that happening is for a council to use CCTV in the area to catch the person doing it in the act. Otherwise you either need to be present when it happens (almost an impossibility), or you need to investigate - and the burden of proof of an investigation is REALLY high (like, you can fail to prosecute someone when you find a bag of rubbish with their personal details inside the bag!). It's also much, much cheaper to use CCTv.

Council's generally don't do this stuff for income - the fines and prosecutions doesn't come close to covering the cost. They do it because it's what the vast, vast majority of residents in a borough want and what the elected members want. People commit anti-social behaviour and envirocrimes all the time, and CCTv is often the best solution to that. Even in my borough, the most pro-EU in the country, if you ask residents what services they would like on their street to reduce ASB / crime, you can guarantee CCTV will be the first thing they ask for.