• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

Gove and IDS are staying. Looking like Lansley is gone.

Lansley should have went a long time ago, and I'm not sad to see the back of Warsi. Gove is a tw*t, in fact it looks like the three biggest gobshites are staying put where they are.

The booing is hilarious btw, I hadn't seen that. I hope that gives him a taste of reality.
 
Lansley should have went a long time ago, and I'm not sad to see the back of Warsi. Gove is a tw*t, in fact it looks like the three biggest gobshites are staying put where they are.

The booing is hilarious btw, I hadn't seen that. I hope that gives him a taste of reality.

"Reality"? He loves it, and he already knows it. Look at his reaction. People often wonder if Cam/Osborne will go the way of Blair/Brown, but I don't think it ever will - Osborne loves being the bad cop too much to want the hot seat, I think. He revels in the political manouvring, on the unpopular decisions; He's the Millwall of UK politics, everyone hates him and he doesn't care. Every school I ever went to had the Headmaster be this fluffy, happy wanker, and it was the deputy Head than wielded the iron rod. I think it's the same here - Osborne is meant to be the one everyone hates, because he's the chancellor during central and local government cuts. There are few ways he could slice it where he ends up being popular - so why not take the flack and let Cameron be 'Dave'?

Incidentally, I love Gove. I think his reforms are great, but more than that, he does actually speak his mind and makes tough decisions. It takes some balls to enact reforms that mean you know you'll be the only education minister ever to have GCSE's fall on your watch; That doesn't mean it's the wrong (or right) thing to do, but it certainly takes balls and it's refreshing to have a politician that's willing to do something that may make him appear unpopular because it's what he believes. Also, his show at Leveson was fantastic.
 
Grayling out of the DWP would be a good day for me.
Pure damage control really. Replacement may be just as bad.

edit. Justice Secretary? That sounds kinda worse... damn. I take it back.
 
Oh, and re: squatting, I have a story. Admittedly, this is from some years ago, so I don't know how the law has changed since then, but it's not all media hysteria, and the law certainly used to allow for some life-ruining anomalies (I assume they are anomalies anyway).

My father used to own a small business, about 30 years ago. What he'd do is, with my mother, collect people's (clean) clothes, take them home, iron them, take them back out to them on hangers and charge them. Effectively it was an ironing service with courier'ing. My father did the picking up and delivering, and my mother did most of the ironing. Eventually the business got larger and larger and they hired a few more people to help out with the ironing, and the deliveries and collections went from a few days a week to all day, every day, including at weekends. As the service continued to grow still, they bought a laundrette, and then another, and then another. The laundrettes all had flats above them, which were rented out by the business. In one such flat, one of the staff at the laundrette downstairs rented it, and she had a good relationship with my parents. Her boyfriend ended up moving in too, and whilst he wasn't in the tennancy, they shared the flat and the rent was always paid on time. This continued on for about five years, at which point the woman in question amicably left the business and decided to move out, to move away from London.

Unfortunately, she also split up with her boyfriend at this point - who then refused to move out. He was basically a waste of space - he has no job or income. Unfortunately, because he had been living in the property for a number of years without paying for it, and it was not the business owners primary home, they couldn't immediately force him to leave due to squatting rights. They ended up taking him to court, where he had a lawyer provided to him by the government, owing to him having no money himself. The cost of fighting this legal battle took a large toll on my parents. The squatters lawyer did everything he could not to win the case, but to delay it long enough that my parents would be starved of funds. This happened after a year or two of the man still living in their property, rent free. At this point, my parents threw in the towel as they could no longer afford the large costs of the legal fees combined with the lack of rent from the property (on which they were still paying a mortgage). As a final slap in the face, as the couple were deemed to have "lost" by dropping the case, the cost of the defendents legal fees were then thrust upon them. This final blow caused them to declare bankruptcy. All of this time, they'd been following the advice of their own lawyers - and in the end, this one man's actions caused them to lose not only their three laundrettes, but their home too, where they had two young children - my brother and I. We were forced to move into a much smaller home and rent, as their bankruptcy meant they couldn't get a mortgage (and, frankly, their now severely diminished income meant they could scarcely afford one anyway).

Despite all this, I have a great deal of sympathy with squatters. My point, I guess, is that just because someone is using the law to stay somewhere that is not someone else's primary resident, doesn't mean it's all hunky dory, and it really can ruin lives.
 
I came here to post this. I really think it's important to take note of Krugman's point that 'there's no easy way to recovery it's going to take ages' is a piece of claptrap. It's taking ages because rather than commit any economic orthodoxy, the chancellor is pursuing ideological ends at the expense of the majority of the population. And that reflects another theme that I think needs to be reiterated, which is that this government is not incompetent, they are actively malicious. Their only incompetence is their failure to hide it.

I'm confused about why you seem to consider "economic orthodoxy" and "ideology" as different things. Almost everything our government does is related to economics - there's the odd liberty-savaging anti-terror law, ID cards, gay marriage, free schools (which already existed anyway, more or less) etc which are primarily social issues, but almost all the rest are economic. NHS reform, welfare reform, local government cuts, central government cuts, ATOS and DSA reform, EMA reform, HS2, university fees etc. All these are the really contentious issues, and they're all economic. And yeah, Osborne is "pursuing ideological ends", but that ideology is an economic orthodoxy (of a smaller central government and greater private control), in the same way Keynesian policies are following an economic orthodoxy (and are equally "pursuing ideological ends"). There's no difference between an economic orthodoxy and an ideology. Economics is never a-political, it's inspired directly to how you view the relationship between the state and its citizens.

I think the reason he's not had any success is that he's failed to offer an reason why our economy would grow. Cutting the deficit and then the debt is aboslutely an important thing to do, in the same way that when you're hitchhiking, you should make sure you're not wondering in the road lest ye be hit by a truck. And it's important you don't get hit by a truck, but it doesn't actually help you get to your destination. What we clearly need is some sort of shot in the arm, and given the choice between raising the deficit by conducting greater central spending or raising the deficit by conducting tax cuts, I know which I'd rather have.
 
"Reality"? He loves it, and he already knows it. Look at his reaction. People often wonder if Cam/Osborne will go the way of Blair/Brown, but I don't think it ever will - Osborne loves being the bad cop too much to want the hot seat, I think. He revels in the political manouvring, on the unpopular decisions; He's the Millwall of UK politics, everyone hates him and he doesn't care. Every school I ever went to had the Headmaster be this fluffy, happy wanker, and it was the deputy Head than wielded the iron rod. I think it's the same here - Osborne is meant to be the one everyone hates, because he's the chancellor during central and local government cuts. There are few ways he could slice it where he ends up being popular - so why not take the flack and let Cameron be 'Dave'?

Incidentally, I love Gove. I think his reforms are great, but more than that, he does actually speak his mind and makes tough decisions. It takes some balls to enact reforms that mean you know you'll be the only education minister ever to have GCSE's fall on your watch; That doesn't mean it's the wrong (or right) thing to do, but it certainly takes balls and it's refreshing to have a politician that's willing to do something that may make him appear unpopular because it's what he believes. Also, his show at Leveson was fantastic.

I respect his eloquence and his ideals re: standards, but I know too many teachers who are unhappy with what he's doing to like him. The thing that rubs me up the wrong way about him most is his ego, and his pedantic, condescending tone. I don't think his changes will 'change' all that much if I'm honest, I will be surprised if they do anything other than cause upheaval and damage the kids caught up in the transition. I think he is symptomatic of this government's continued dog whistling and pandering to the self-hating Briton; the morally outraged daily heil reader... his policies are designed for headlines that will be pleasing to them.

Unfortunately I think you may be spot on about Osborne.
 
jeremy hunt in a hospital, deer in headlights

jeremy-hunt-229286377.jpg
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
It's like shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.

As there's no chance of Boris as PM to add some gallows humour I am not interested in it at all. Boris for PM!
 
I respect his eloquence and his ideals re: standards, but I know too many teachers who are unhappy with what he's doing to like him. The thing that rubs me up the wrong way about him most is his ego, and his pedantic, condescending tone. I don't think his changes will 'change' all that much if I'm honest, I will be surprised if they do anything other than cause upheaval and damage the kids caught up in the transition. I think he is symptomatic of this government's continued dog whistling and pandering to the self-hating Briton; the morally outraged daily heil reader... his policies are designed for headlines that will be pleasing to them.

Hmm, I must say that I disagree entirely. Well, he does come over as condescending, but I suppose a Scottish Tory he probably spend the better part of 20 years constantly having to justify himself, which I imagine does wonders to ingrain a sense of self-belief... But I think the schools are a great thing. The few examples of Academies from the Labour years showed amazing turnarounds. And to be honest, I know a few teachers and some like the reforms, some don't, but it's one of those tricky things, isn't it - because so many of our schools are state-run via LEA's, it's a bit like the NHS, London Underground workers etc - you can never be sure if their concern is with themselves or with the people they're meant to be serving. And, eitherway, when the money pot is running dry, sometimes you have to sacrifice both. No one likes doing that, but that doesn't mean it's never the best option. In an industry with very little competition for jobs, like LEA run schools, socialised healthcare (if Nurses don't like their employment conditions, what can they do? Bupa can only hire so many people. Ditto Tube drivers, though Bupa are probably less keen on hiring them...), the government has the unenviable task of deliberating between the good of the employees and the good of the students in incidents where those two are not aligned, and it finds itself in the situation where those in must consult on the issue are one of those two groups. Every time TFL announces they're closing ticket offices, Bob Crow cries bloody murder about passenger safety, quality of service etc. It's never about members of his union losing their jobs (even though, given that's more or less his job, I don't think people would actually care if he just came out and said that).

Which is all just my long way of saying that the fact teachers don't like it isn't necessarily reason to think they're bad reforms. Like an education minister, I can imagine it isn't nice being a teacher under whose watch GCSE results go down for the first time. But, again, that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. At a time when (until this summer) our GCSE and A-Level results were constantly going up, yet our international standings in education where going down, I think it's pretty clear that, grade inflation or not, there's a problem with our exams. And teachers are never going to like reform that makes them look like they're doing worse than they were last year.

It's not an area I know a great deal about, however.
 
Interesting reshuffle so far.

Clarke to Treasury is a good call, I think. It might quell the backbenchers a bit who simultaneously a) hated his liberalism in justice and b) loved his liberalism in economics pre-dark ages. Ditto, Grayling is a fairly old school Tory - home counties, and actually conservative with a small c. He'll help assuage Tory back bench fears on Justice, though he'll be unlikely to do anything significant, given the depths of the cuts there.

Warsi out of chairman is great. I hope Shapps gets it - he's exactly what the Tories need there. He's intelligent, articulate, willing to throw a few punches and was wasted in the housing brief. He's like a thinner, better looking, less annoying Pickles.

Laws into Education seems like a waste (is that confirmed or a rumour). He's fiscally excellent, it'd have been good to see him back in the treasury but Danny is doing a good job there, so I suppose there's no room. Education is one area where the government is already doing some pretty radical things, so it seems like Laws's effectiveness might have been better used in Health - certainly, Hunt's going to need all the help he can get. Health, at the moment, pre-reform, is a suicide mission for whoever has to actually enact the changes.
 

SteveWD40

Member
Hunt being promoted is mindblowing. Like, so insane that Cameron simply must be trolling.

lol, justine greening demoted to international development.

I can only assume he knows they are done in 3 years so might as well fuck up as much stuff as they can on the way out.

Although I am yet to hear whispers of anyone decent in the wings at Labour to run for leader...surely they don't think Milliband can win an election? please tell me they don't?

D:
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I think the reason hunt was promoted was purely party-political. I suspect cameron wanted him out of culture but didn't want to give labour the ammuntion that it was because he'd messed up, so promoted him rather then booting him out of cabinet or demoting him.

Disappointing to me, I think he should have kicked him out & just dealt with the flak.
 

Yen

Member
Saw on twitter that Hunt wanted to lower the limit for abortions to 12 weeks. And supports homeopathy, of course.
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
BBC said:
In a bold new move, designed to streamline the service and improve efficiency, the new Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced the H in NHS will now stand for Homeopathy

I'm expecting that.
 

Walshicus

Member
Hunt being promoted is mindblowing. Like, so insane that Cameron simply must be trolling. He even supports homeopathy

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...unt-health-secretary-thinks-homeopathy-works/

lol, justine greening demoted to international development.

Loved this quote from the link's comment section:
"Provided he keeps his opinions out of policy Mr Hunt can have his own version of nutjobbery."

Jeremy Cu-... Hunt keeping his opinions out of policy? He did so well with that in his last job didn't he!
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Hunt still having a cabinet position is a travesty.

Actually, Tories still having cabinet positions is a travesty.

[edit]First all-white cabinet in 15 years.
 

Lear

Member
So we now have a Health Secretary who supports homeopathy, is anti-abortion, is against stem cell research. As well as this we have a Justice Secretary who is a probably a homophobe and has no legal background. As the cherry on top, new Minister for Women and Equality supported Dorries amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill. She's also against Libel Reform, which simply confirms that she's a moron. I miss Lynne Featherstone already.

Fucking hell.
 

Lear

Member
The difficulty with the 1977 offence was in detemining whether the suspect was a "trespasser" - you are't a trespasser (very roughly) merely by taking possession of land, particularly if you may have some right to it.

The adverse possession bit comes in because it wasn't until the Land Registration Act of (I think) 1993 that the register was made public, and not until the LRA of about 2003 that the rules on adverse possession changed, Until then it was always, even with registered land, possible to claim that you did not know who the landowner was and to at least stake a claim under adverse possession in the civil courts which essentially slowed down proceedings a lot.

EDIT: It's worth remembering also that, aside from the weird and wonderful case law surrounding it, the adverse possession rule was largely used by people re-establishing a claim to their own land when they had lost the deeds. It was never quite the charter for 'occupier takes all' that it seems at first sight.

I'm sure this will get lost in the posts about the cabinet re-shuffle but I'd like to address this post.

If that was really the issue with s.7 CLA '77 then these changes do nothing to address it. s.144(1) of the LASPO Act 2012 is still phrased in terms of trespass.

Is determining whether someone is a trespasser really that much of an issue in practice? It's a strict liability tort. So the mere act of entering onto the land is actionable per se. Of course there is always the danger of the squatter contesting this by claiming they have a defence as they had a right to be on the land, which might lead to civil actions, but I don't see how most such cases wouldn't be dealt with quickly.

I understand there has been an issue with squatters having fake tenancy agreements that they show to police, but the new law does nothing to address this issue (if it's a real problem, i havent seen any figures or hard evidence about it being a common practice) because (a) the offence still requires that the squatter is a trespasser and (b) s.144(2) states the offence doesn't apply to someone who remains on the property after the end of a licence or lease.

It seems like an utterly pointless piece of legislation that doesn't address the supposed problem. Far better would be to ensure that s.7 CLA 1977 was better used and understood by the police.
 

Meadows

Banned
About the least inspiring cabinet re-shuffle I've ever seen. The only positive morsel is that Laws is back. The man has a double 1st in Economics from Cambridge for goodness sakes.
 

Jackpot

Banned
About the least inspiring cabinet re-shuffle I've ever seen. The only positive morsel is that Laws is back. The man has a double 1st in Economics from Cambridge for goodness sakes.

And syphoned taxpayer money to his partner and claimed £75,000 in expenses with no receipts despite being a millionaire himself.
 

Lear

Member
About the least inspiring cabinet re-shuffle I've ever seen. The only positive morsel is that Laws is back. The man has a double 1st in Economics from Cambridge for goodness sakes.

To be fair, Cameron has a first in PPE from Oxford, so we perhaps shouldn't place too much weight on qualifications... Incidentally, I thought that Osborne had done PPE too, but it turns out he got a 2:1 in History. Explains a lot about him.

I'm glad to see David Laws back. I like him enough to forgive the expenses thing (which I know isn't very principled).

Edit: It seems Maria Miller, new Minister for Women and Equalities, is a bit of a homophobe. Did Cameron pick names out of a hat or something?
https://p.twimg.com/A18w7WJCIAAnRCA.jpg
 
CHEEZMO™;41738701 said:

What is Cameron thinking?


Take an outspoken critic of the BBC and proponent of BSkyB, allow him to oversee the regulatory role scrutinising the latter's potential merger.

Get rid of your least popular cabinet minister, taking into account the public perception of his handling of a prized national institution - the NHS. Then take a critic of it, a man who has allegedly called for it to be dismantled and called it "no longer relevant" -- and install him as health secretary in his place?
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm sure this will get lost in the posts about the cabinet re-shuffle but I'd like to address this post.

If that was really the issue with s.7 CLA '77 then these changes do nothing to address it. s.144(1) of the LASPO Act 2012 is still phrased in terms of trespass.

Is determining whether someone is a trespasser really that much of an issue in practice? It's a strict liability tort. So the mere act of entering onto the land is actionable per se. Of course there is always the danger of the squatter contesting this by claiming they have a defence as they had a right to be on the land, which might lead to civil actions, but I don't see how most such cases wouldn't be dealt with quickly.

I understand there has been an issue with squatters having fake tenancy agreements that they show to police, but the new law does nothing to address this issue (if it's a real problem, i havent seen any figures or hard evidence about it being a common practice) because (a) the offence still requires that the squatter is a trespasser and (b) s.144(2) states the offence doesn't apply to someone who remains on the property after the end of a licence or lease.

It seems like an utterly pointless piece of legislation that doesn't address the supposed problem. Far better would be to ensure that s.7 CLA 1977 was better used and understood by the police.

Glad you came back on this. I'm kind of on your side that enforcing s7 CLA 1977 would be a better way around, but I do recognise the practical difficulties of that.

Regarding "trespassing", it is different in a land claim than it is in, say, burglary. In general, if you have a sniff of a chance of making an adverse possession case stand up in the civil courts then there's no way you can be found to be trespassing beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal courts - which is where I think s7 CLA 1977 fell down and out of use. One impact of having a new law is that it opens the way to different interpretations rather than being hidebound by old (here, pre-2003-ish) precedent. It still isn't terribly well drafted and I would have preferred to see it put as an extension to burglary rather than as a standalone offence.

The key change is the amendment to PACE 1984 allowing entry by the police for arrest. That alone is worth the difference, though doubtless there might have been an easier way of doing it.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Secretary of Transport - Scared of flying.
Secretary of Health - Wants to dismantle the NHS, opposes abortion, opposes stem cell research, and advocates homoeopathy as viable treatment.
Secretary of Environment - Climate change sceptic.
Secretary of Justice - Believes businesses should be able to discriminate against homosexuals.
Secretary for Women and Equalities - Hates gays and minorities.

Next thing you know they'll have a Chancellor who doesn't know shit about econ-...
 
Top Bottom