BumblebeeCody
Member
I'm glad Miliband is sticking up to the egg throwers now.
HOLY SHI- awww it's not real. Damn that'd make for an interesting campaign though.
-
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.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
HOLY SHI- awww it's not real. Damn that'd make for an interesting campaign though.
anonymous_abc
Member
Ok, I was looking at unions through my German-tinted glasses.
Unions here generally try to get along with the employers and no one would ever go violent here.
I just forgot about how fracked up it was in the past in the UK.
Mind you Germany didn't have a Maggie, so we're good.
Nicktendo86
Member
If it turns out anything like the DLR I say bring it on, much more reliable service and I don't hear anyone worrying about safety. Trains are still staffed but the person can actually walk through carriages, engage with customers, check tickets etc. LU has been in the dark ages for far too long. Ironic that it is the union who is one of the major forces which is going to result in the changes!
It's a bit of a stretch to blame the RMT for that. The technology is there, safe and reliable, and fundamentally cheaper over the long term it was always going to come in. The best the RMT have done is speed up it's adoption.
broadwayrock
Member
Nigel Farage gets a grilling on LBC by James O'Brien:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyYoL9ngtE&t=2m15s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pyYoL9ngtE&t=2m15s
CyclopsRock
Member
Anyone know why there was a yellow Lab sitting in a chair on the stage of This Week last night? He kept standing up in frame during a debate on education policy.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Yup. DLR is the best line in london - fast, reliable and it's easy to speak to a TFL offical.
It's so reliable that they actually put posters up every month with last month's 99.X% reliability stats.
Guessing you didn't watch it last year? That's one of Andrew Neil's dogs. I guess the bbc finally releaxed their health & safety rules.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yuh, I saw him refer to her as Molly but... why's she there? I mean I'm all for it, I love dogs.
Ok, I was looking at unions through my German-tinted glasses.
Unions here generally try to get along with the employers and no one would ever go violent here.
I just forgot about how fracked up it was in the past in the UK.
Mind you Germany didn't have a Maggie, so we're good.
Germany just plain has a better approach to work and business. England has become obsessed with short-termism.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
From memory he was telling the editor of the show about his dogs, and the editor said to bring one on (probably to boost ratings). He said if blue peter was allowed a dog, so should he.
CyclopsRock
Member
Fair enough! It worked on me.
That was a bloodbath, an painful, torturous rending apart of every idiotic sugar coated racist talking point. Utterly glorious.
I'm sure the studio was going to be washed of the smell of sulpher after he left but I think the cleaners are going to be doing some overtime tonight.
anonymous_abc
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
Great interview with Ed Milliband here (the real one, not Axelrod's parody one)
http://www.channel4.com/news/why-are-you-unpopoular-ed-miliband
Edit: I must say as much as a tit Fararge is that LBC presenter was insufferable. Incredibly rude, that was not a professional interview at all.
http://www.channel4.com/news/why-are-you-unpopoular-ed-miliband
Edit: I must say as much as a tit Fararge is that LBC presenter was insufferable. Incredibly rude, that was not a professional interview at all.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So Dave has extended an invitation for a full state visit to Narendra Modi. Very smart politics and great news for businesses looking to invest in India or get investment from Indian multinationals. Puts Labour in a real bind. Do they meet him as will be expected and risk protests and George Galloway all over the media decrying Labour for meeting someone who is seen to be involved in anti-Muslim violence (though no evidence was ever found to show that and Labour over reacted hugely in 2002 by cutting ties), or do they snub him and get a beat down from the business community for playing politics with the economy. Sticky wicket for Ed Miliband. For DC meeting Modi will help shore up votes in Harrow, Leicester, Wembley and possibly Southall. They don't have much chance of winning in Bradford, Whitechapel and other areas with a high proportion of Muslims anyway so meeting with someone like Modi won't make any difference.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...on-services-department-for-education-proposes
For profit child protection services? This government has no shame.
For profit child protection services? This government has no shame.
anonymous_abc
Member
So little boy, you're saying your parents have hit you aye?
Well did you bring your piggy bank as I asked you last time?
Hmm Har...
Sorry kiddo, £ 3.50 will not do, but please do come back if you get more allowance in the future. Have a nice day.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I'm not quite sure what the objection to this is. It isn't like the not-for-profit (public and charitable) sector has exactly covered itself in glory over the years.
anonymous_abc
Member
And if there is one thing history has shown us it's that privatisation is always the answer and leads to great results.
It's not like the whole system is just chronically underfunded and understaffed or anything‽
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, there are different takes on that.
I certainly don't claim that privatisation is always the answer or that it always leads to great results, any more than I claim that outsourcing in the private sector does the same. But on the other hand it isn't entirely rational to claim the keeping things inhouse (or in the public sector) is the right answer either. The whole insource/outsource/public/private thing is a bit of a red herring - because in the public sector there is always a profit being made, but it is completely concealed in the civil service accounts; because mostly when you successfully outsource something (in the private sector) you get a better more accountable service for less money; because the three big problems with public sector outsourcing are (a) writing rotten contracts (b) trying to go too big all at once and (c) denying the investment spend promised at startup. In the private sector these things mostly get managed properly.
As to the five points listed in the article you quoted:
Really? How come the most consistently top-rated part of the NHS is the GPs (who are nearly all private)? Your services don't get worse. At least not necessarily. Remember BT before privatisation - when you had to wait 6 months to get a telephone line? Remember the NHS yesterday where there is a 2-day waiting list followed by a 2-month waiting list followed by a 6-month waiting list for something that should be diagnosed in two days?
Not necessarily, but it rather depends what targets you write into the contract. And it ALSO depends on whether you are willing to sack all the civil servants you had doing the same thing badly before. And the thing about "top executives" rather grates too. I've met a number of senior executives in government agencies and typically they are carrying about 1/3 the responsibility an equivalently-paid private sector executive would have. And still claim they are underpaid. Wow.
Yes you can. If you write the contract properly you can hold them accountable every day, for every penny (more practically it is every month for every £5,000). So maybe they're not democratically accountable huh? Well, democratically accountable means you can only hold them to account every 5 years and if they are more than a few billion off. I know which I would prefer.
Staff are undermined all the damn time in government agencies. See any responsible blog about NHS, Probation, Police, Environment Agency etc etc. They don't get any more undermined in sensibly outsourced services. Or probably any less to be honest, it is the nature of staff to be undermined - but that's not a public v private thing.
It's not all that difficult. Any large-scale outsourcing can usually be reversed in about the same time it took to do it in the first place (roughly a year thinking about it, six months tendering and working the contract, 6 months transition). It is intricate but not particularly difficult. And you don't lose much of the knowledge either because most of the people come with the deal. That's the law. It's politically difficult sure, but that doesn't mean it is actually difficult.
anonymous_abc
Member
You are right of course in that there are different takes on that, and that it doesn't always work or not work.
The main difference for me is that a public company is not out to make money, their goal is improve the service for the 'customer'. Private companies on the other hand are always out to make money and squeeze every last bit out of their respective companies.
Lots of especially infrastructure services require very very long term investment strategies, as money spent now will only have a positive effect in 10, 15 or 20 years. That is not the kind of time scale privately held companies can or want to work on. Resulting in a serious lack of long term funding in order to please the quarterly numbers. The best thing about that for them is. If these investments stay out and shit hits the fan in 10 or 15 years, they have made their money go bust and the tax payer is left to pick up the pieces.
I suggest you watch Water Makes Money as an illustrative example of how privatisation of water has worked (or not) in France.
Jezbollah
Member
Good morning folks. Please can you answer a question for me.
If Scotland votes for independance, are they still allowed to vote in the general election next year given that they wouldn't officially become independent until 2016..
If someone could post a source for this answer I'd appreciate it - just been reading an interesting debate on FB about it amongst my friends.
Thanks all
If Scotland votes for independance, are they still allowed to vote in the general election next year given that they wouldn't officially become independent until 2016..
If someone could post a source for this answer I'd appreciate it - just been reading an interesting debate on FB about it amongst my friends.
Thanks all
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yes. Scots MPs would enter parliament in May 2015 and then leave after independence. It creates a whole bunch of anomalies because Labour could get to 320-330 with Scotland with the Tories on 300 giving Labour the most seats or a possible majority with Scotland and the chance to win a confidence vote but then pushed into minority government in 2016 and the Tories with the most seats or even an E+W majority to force a vite of confidence and put Cameron back into No.10. They really need to sort it out.
WayneMorse
Banned
I'm gonna be bold and predict that Labour will come in a clear 1st place in the EU Parliament elections, with the Conservatives and UKIP coming in close second and third.
WayneMorse
Banned
Coming back to this because:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/ashcroft-national-poll-con-29-lab-35-ld-9-ukip-14/
OH I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE TURNING POINT AND MILIBAND WAS A SUREFIRE LOSER
Nicktendo86
Member
Comres has Tories on a one point lead. Polls are a bit all over the place but the trend is clear.
CyclopsRock
Member
Like Nick says, it's the trend that matters. Six months ago, there weren't polls with the Tories ahead. A year ago there weren't many with them at less than 10 points behind. Now, the very fact that they have had one or two with them ahead speaks volumes - they fact they're appearing pretty frequently is even more damning. Labour have a problem, undeniably.
I, on the other hand, do not - I've come across all patriotic, as I'm sitting down, having a tasty 11.48am pint of beer and staring at this. Gawd bless our Maj!
Willard Foxton ‏@WillardFoxton
Pure In the Thick of It gold as UKIP book steel band for anti-racism carnival, who then refuse to play because party is racist.
Michael Deacon ‏@MichaelPDeacon
One of the steel drummers has revealed he didn't know he was being booked by Ukip - and if he'd known, he wouldn't have come #ukipcarnival
Pure In the Thick of It gold as UKIP book steel band for anti-racism carnival, who then refuse to play because party is racist.
Michael Deacon ‏@MichaelPDeacon
One of the steel drummers has revealed he didn't know he was being booked by Ukip - and if he'd known, he wouldn't have come #ukipcarnival
Delusibeta
Banned
This is after Nigel Farage gives up the pretence of not being racist and goes off on a rant against Romanians. Multiple times.
Of course, whether that would kill off the UKIP vote is another question entirely, since most of their voter base would probably find being racist against Romanians entirely acceptable.
The current situation shows how completely unintelligent UKIP are. They are managing to get called racists even when their party line advocates a completely unracist immigration points based system because they let themselves get tied up in discussions about Romanians or Polish.
If you want to see a pathetically discriminatory, protectionist and racist immigration system you only have to look as far as our current system which the left are cheerleading. Fact is if you are a medical graduate or engineer from anywhere that isn't the EU of the highest degree who speaks excellent English the chances are you won't get granted access the the UK, no matter how much we need your skills. Hell, even if you are from the Commonwealth you wouldn't because the government is desperately trying to keep the immigrant figures as low as possible and the only ones they can discriminate against are the immigrants from the rest of the world.
We are actively turning away some of the best minds in the world because we have to accept anyone (Usually tradespeople willing to heavily undercut prices, driving down wages on those that can afford it the least.) from the EU.
UKIPs message should be so simple and they haven't even got the intelligence to articulate it. This is happening across the entire EU and it pickles my mind why nobody seems to notice it is happening. Protectionism is an economic cancer and we are doing it in a way that's damn stupid.
Jezbollah
Member
It's Ed's turn to get shellacked on radio today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ciating-interview-on-BBC-Radio-Wiltshire.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ciating-interview-on-BBC-Radio-Wiltshire.html
He's really not very good in high pressure situations. He dropped the ball on TV this morning as well whereas anyone with even half a wit would have been able to talk their way out of it.
Nicktendo86
Member
Painful, didn't sound so intelligently superior there Ed.
anonymous_abc
Member
Delusibeta
Banned
Meanwhile, you know how I predicted that UKIP's voter base would agree with Farage's racism? Turns out I was exactly right.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think that they're extrapolating a little, there. I think this line is important: "One source said: "Calling people names does not work. It confirms the old politics.""
UKIP have basically got the "none of the above" vote sewn up. It can never be Tory or Labour that get that, and it always used to be Lib Dems, but they can't be that either now that they're in government. If you want to vote for someone who's not establishment because you think the whole thing is rotten, UKIP is an obvious place to put your vote if you a) want it to count for something (as they have the most chance of getting seats, especially in Europe) and b) find Farage to be personally so unlike Cam, Clegg and Miliband that his policies are actually secondary to his personality in defining him as "non-establishment". That said, I still think their vote will collapse ahead of the 2015 election. There's too much at stake, especially when it comes to the EU, for people who genuinely want to leave it to fuck about voting UKIP. The Conservative posters aren't wrong when they say they're the only party willing and able to offer a referendum on Europe. Combine that with an alternative with a) no referendum and b) Miliband as PM, and I think UKIP's voteshare will shatter, just like it always does.
CyclopsRock
Member
Also, am I the only one that agrees with Nige that I would rather live next to Germans than Romanians?
I don't understand why he has to make statements like that....
UKIP should just say they want a controlled points based immigration system because the current system a) Brings in too many numbers with poor over subscribed skills and b) is deeply discriminatory to the rest of the world.
Simple as, no-one can call him racist, job done and it makes sense. Why he has to talk about specific countries beggars belief.
CyclopsRock
Member
I agree, it was a tactical error. BUT it's worth noting that the radio presenter specifically asked him that question. He could have backed out of it, but James O'Brien was being pretty dogged with him (it was pretty well known that he utterly loathes Farage) so I'm not sure how viable a tactic that'd have been. That said, saying that he'd rather live next to one nationality than another (even if a lot of people way well share the view) is unlikely to win him votes, that's true.
anonymous_abc
Member
I know some really cool Romanians, and plenty of really rotten Germans. So I would definitely not want to pass such a broad judgement.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure. And crime is only one facet of life, and you can't really statistically account for variances in personality (nice people, arseholes etc), but it's an undeniable fact that any given Romanian you meet in London is more likely to have committed a crime than a German; more than ten times more likely, in fact. As such, I feel pretty comfortable saying I'd rather live next door to Germans.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Talking specifically about London the numbers don't lie.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/reasons-to-love-your-german-neighbours/
Farage was stupid and naïve to think that this wouldn't get twisted as it has, but he was and is right. In London Romanians commit more crime than Germans. I work with a couple of Germans and they are thoroughly excellent people, their wives and children are also really nice. If someone gave me the same choice as was offered Farage, that is living next to a German family or a group of Romanian men, I wouldn't even need to think twice. The types of economic immigration are different, German immigrants in the UK tend to be professionals and work in the ABC1 industries, Romanians are the direct opposite of German immigrants in the UK. Germans are model immigrants, they assimilate easily, learn the language and customs, don't send their money back to their homeland and are generally great people. I do not believe the same can be said for the current crop of Romanian immigrants, and when it comes to crime the figures bear that out.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/reasons-to-love-your-german-neighbours/
Farage was stupid and naïve to think that this wouldn't get twisted as it has, but he was and is right. In London Romanians commit more crime than Germans. I work with a couple of Germans and they are thoroughly excellent people, their wives and children are also really nice. If someone gave me the same choice as was offered Farage, that is living next to a German family or a group of Romanian men, I wouldn't even need to think twice. The types of economic immigration are different, German immigrants in the UK tend to be professionals and work in the ABC1 industries, Romanians are the direct opposite of German immigrants in the UK. Germans are model immigrants, they assimilate easily, learn the language and customs, don't send their money back to their homeland and are generally great people. I do not believe the same can be said for the current crop of Romanian immigrants, and when it comes to crime the figures bear that out.
Switch out 'Romanians' with 'black people' and tell me does that sound acceptable to you?
The same goes for you zomgwtfbbq. Or do you truly believe that they are more likely to commit crimes by virtue of being Romanian? I can scarcely believe what I'm reading.
We've finally reached full out fascism on neogaf. Well done to UKIP for at least rooting you out.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I don't think that's what I said. Its the differential in the type of economic migration that leads the current situation. Romania, in our terms at least, is a dirt poor country. Their borders have just been opened up to countries where the average wages are about 3x higher. If you are so naïve to think that this does not attract criminality then I think we may as well not bother with this discussion. I do not believe that Romanians in general have a higher level of criminality, and I'm sure that if I go to Romania I will have that belief confirmed.
Again, the numbers don't lie about London though. Instead of name calling why not try and understand the numbers. Cold hard statistics are not on your side.
I agree with you.
You really don't get it do you? You've profiled a person before even knowing them based on the economic conditions or actions of their peers.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but aren't you of Asian descent zomgbbqftw? Would you enjoy being banned from airports because I don't feel comfortable around you, and you're more likely to be a terrorist? The numbers don't lie.
CyclopsRock
Member
Umph? I don't really understand your position; If you genuinely think that there are no factors beyond pure individual personality which is equally likely to be good or bad across all culture, what accounts for the 1,000% increase in crime committed by Romanians vs Germans?
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the very poverty that drives Romanian's to seek a better life outside their own borders is the same poverty that causes them to be more likely to commit crimes? They aren't more likely to commit crimes by virtue of being Romanian - they're more likely to commit crimes by virtue of being poor, and they're more likely to be poor by virtue of Romania's current economic situation. This isn't the case with Germany, thus the huge disparity in the crime statistics. What part of this analysis is either a) wrong or b) fascist?
Edit: Who said anything about "banning"? The question was about who you'd rather live next to.
I genuinely can't believe we're having the "I wouldn't live next to a black man" discussion. Complete with "Oh heavens no not due to their skin colour, but their desperate situation drives them to a life of crime, you know." Another day, same Tory racism and classism against those not part of the chosen few.