U.K. Politics: Boris Johnson referred to police (AGAIN) over potential Covid rule breaches

[Brad]

This is a helpful site. It shows the policies for each party without revealing which belong to which on all the important areas

I throw that site at everyone who can't decide who to vote.

[Blondini]

^I took that survey - i came up personally as 66% Green and 34% Labour. What was more interesting / annoying is that Greens came a close second in the Stockton North constituency results yet we can't vote for them. :x Indeed, Greens did well on every result - England, National. Conservatives have done very badly.

Yeah, i meant non-doms in previous post.

Marius, what do you think of this: (i know he's not a politician but he ought to be given his current influence)
[youtube:jz6u1pzp]DEzVDDatibk[/youtube:jz6u1pzp]

[Madgefan]

This is a helpful site. It shows the policies for each party without revealing which belong to which on all the important areas

I throw that site at everyone who can't decide who to vote.

It was interesting to take the survey although I already know who I am voting for. I got 80% Labour/20% Green which is not really a surprise to me

[Marius]

My results (quite surprising, tbh, would have thought LibDems would do better)

Conservatives 60% (Crime, Democracy, Education, Foreign Policy / Defence, Health / NHS, Welfare)
Labour 20% (Environment, Immigration)
Green 10% (Europe)
Liberal Democrats 10% (Economy)

So yeah, if Tories drop their idiotic opposition to immigration and dislike of EU, i may even become a paying member

Russell Brand - i think he has about as much talent for politics as Ed Milliband has for stand-up comedy. I am always a bit pissed off with rich people who go on about inequality - if they mind it so much, they should give away all their wealth to charity and convince other rich people to join. Or just make a massive donation to HMRC.

I personally think inequality is good, as long as:

- it is not arrived at through robbery / pilferage (see oligarch style inequality started by privatising national resources by selling them to a few insiders - ie Russia of today)
- it is not imposed through coercion (Gov kills anyone who tries to reduce it - see some African countries today)
- appropriate controls are in place to prevent massive inter-generational accumulation of wealth (ie high inheritance taxes)
- it is not extreme (ie a country has 100 billionaires and 500m people without running water and toilets - aka India)
- it is accompanied by basic democratic rights (freedom of speech, free elections, alternance of parties in power etc)

Or, to put it shorter we should aim for equality of opportunity and inequality of outcome. That is the environment that will allow people with skills that are in demand to prosper (even dodgy skills like Russell Brand's). I'd say this is where we are now in the EEA countries, Switzerland, US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

[Thombus]

That was a really interesting survey. I've always been surrounded by Labour voters and coming from Manchester I've seen first hand how positive the investment from New Labour has been to the City, so from a local perspective I'd always lean to Labour. However, in more recent years I have found myself questioning many of their policies, and it makes me incredibly nervous thinking about them under estimating how much we need to cut back as a country to become balanced again.

In short, this year I have no idea who I'm voting for as each party is too scant on detail and seem to be saying the buzz words to capture votes. I really don't agree with the Conservatives overall ideology however, the last 5 years haven't been tough for me personally and the UK seems to be getting back on its feet so job well done. That said, the second wave of cuts to come should they get into power with a majority government could prove devastating to public services and the prospect of the NHS under threat fills me with dread!

I'll be very interested in reading manifestos over the coming weeks and seeing if they sway me.

I got 75% Labour and 25% Conservative on that survey, btw.

[Graham76man]

However, in more recent years I have found myself questioning many of their policies, and it makes me incredibly nervous thinking about them under estimating how much we need to cut back as a country to become balanced again.

In short, this year I have no idea who I'm voting for as each party is too scant on detail and seem to be saying the buzz words to capture votes. I really don't agree with the Conservatives overall ideology however, the last 5 years haven't been tough for me personally and the UK seems to be getting back on its feet so job well done. That said, the second wave of cuts to come should they get into power with a majority government could prove devastating to public services and the prospect of the NHS under threat fills me with dread!

What makes anyone certain we need to cut back on spending? At the end of the day the figures Governments produce are just that. Most of the economics ones brought out by a bunch of overpaid accountants. It's time to start questioning the "need" for cuts and to question those who put up these figures.
Monetary figures have often been brought up in the past. 1970's Governments use to blame inflation figures on high wage settlements, but there was no evidence for this. In the 80's the government blamed inflation on too much money circulating in the economy.
I think future generations will simply look back on this need to cut spending and laugh about it as some silly theory that gullible public believed, while the real cause was ignored - whatever that is actually is still to be determined.

[Wayne]

What makes anyone certain we need to cut back on spending? At the end of the day the figures Governments produce are just that. Most of the economics ones brought out by a bunch of overpaid accountants. It's time to start questioning the "need" for cuts and to question those who put up these figures.

You are not of this world, Graham.

[Graham76man]

What makes anyone certain we need to cut back on spending? At the end of the day the figures Governments produce are just that. Most of the economics ones brought out by a bunch of overpaid accountants. It's time to start questioning the "need" for cuts and to question those who put up these figures.

You are not of this world, Graham.

Oh dear Wayne - you are on the turn Of becoming a politician

Governments just mess about with figures, they don't tackle the real issues, simply because they are up for election every five years or so. Often they claim to tackle the issues, such as telling us we need spending cuts. However reducing the school leaving age back to 14 would in the long run reduce spending and create more jobs, simply because more young people would be spending things on a wage that is greater than some allowance they get now. Since young people tend to spend money on none essentials, more than adults, that would boost the economy creating more work. The side effect of this would be that these kids would grow up better because they would mix more with adults. Learning more about life, rather than William Shakespeare.
Would you sooner have a 15 year old earning £100 a week than learning about dead poets costing you a £100 pound a week?
Your choice

[Brad]

Who are you voting for? Which Sheffield constituency are you in?

[Graham76man]

Who are you voting for? Which Sheffield constituency are you in?

I'm in the Heeley constituency and the Green leaflet says it's Rita Wilcock, plus we have a local job as well and Mike Herbert is doing that for the Green's. We have only had one other leaflet for the TUC. Last time the main parties sent their leaflets out too late, since we are all postal voters in our house and sent them off. However the Green party doesn't get a great amount of votes in Heeley. Mostly Labour voters unfortunately. Labour tend to complain that the vote for Green is allowing the Liberals in, when last they got in. But it's no longer the Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire.

[Brad]

Yeah, I expect Labour to win Heeley. I'll be voting Green in Central. The Lib Dems will probably lose Hallam to Labour.

[Wayne]

Would you sooner have a 15 year old earning £100 a week than learning about dead poets costing you a £100 pound a week?
Your choice

I would much, much rather have the 14/15 year old in school. I also don't know where your £100 per week figure comes from?

Making 14 and 15 year olds work is regressive and stupid in my mind.

The extra two/three years I spent at school/college allowed me the opportunity to right a lot of wrongs/mistakes I'd made. Had I left at 14, I dread to think where I'd have ended up. School isn't for everyone, but everyone deserves the same opportunities - our education system isn't perfect but the solution will not be found in shortening the education of those most in need of it. The education system costing me money doesn't phase me - I'm happy to put back into a system that did a great deal for me.

I don't know why I let you do this to me.

[Graham76man]

Since I don't know you much Wayne I can't say precisely what the Education system has done to you. HOWEVER it is destroying the UK. It contributes to most of the UK problems, most of which are being discussed in this election.
Apart the fact that the suicide rate is highest in teenagers as they cope with problems such as bullying in schools, or trying to get an exam to give them a job when they are thrown back into the real world, which they probably didn't really need in any case.
Education also fosters racism, extreme radical views - you only have to walk past a university to see that. I could go on and on about how bad Education, but what I do know about you Wayne - clearly as a result from the education you have had - it would be a waste of time.
But consider what the education system has produced: You might be familiar with one - the Peer group. Is this forum one of them I wonder? :-?
‘Peer’ types are familiar to all. Here are a few common names and types for them: teacher’s pet, cheerleader, the geek, the rebel, bullies, nerds, swots, larking about and the practical joker. Imagine a culture based on that lot! Hello! Welcome to the 21st Century.

Still think education is good for the UK? Try working in a inner city areas, where gangs are as common as muck and the drug dealers make money from the kids, trying to convince someone to get an O level will magic away their problems. While at the same time knowing the gangs were created by the education system and the drugs were a by-product of it.

As for the money, since you probably pay Council Tax, then since over 50% of any council's budget is for education, combined with the tax system itself. I would say that £100 pounds is about right - as a guess! Of course if you the consider all the problems that education contributes greatly too then, then you need to factor those costs in. Crime for example, drug treatment on the NHS etc....

[Marius]

Education also fosters racism, extreme radical views

Yeah, all UKIP / BNP / EDL supporters, are known to hold PhDs and MBAs...

[Wayne]

Bloody hell.

[Brad]

The current education system doesn't equip anyone with the knowledge of real life skills before the age of 18 (buying a house, good financing, etc. etc), but I think Graham is going to the extreme.

Apart the fact that the suicide rate is highest in teenagers as they cope with problems such as bullying in schools
Education also fosters racism, extreme radical views

These aren't problems with the eduction system, but the people in it due to socialisation.

There was a massive problem with bullying and racism at my high school when I was younger, but it wasn't down to the education system. The children had simply inherited the views and ideologies of their parents. Some have grown to be entirely different due to the education system doings its best to educate them on such issues (it certainly tried in a class we had called Citizenship at my school).

[Wayne]

The current education system doesn't equip anyone with the knowledge of real life skills before the age of 18 (buying a house, good financing, etc. etc), but I think Graham is going to the extreme.

But it has never been necessary for the education system to do this before - the last time we had an election, we were just starting on the road to austerity. And 4 years before that, recession was just a buzzword. So I guess it's never really been an issue.

I'm still not convinced it is now the function of the education system to teach someone about buying a house for e.g. Though I do think the life skills bit is worth consideration.

I definitely think that as part of the socialization of young people, there needs to be a balanced input of both primary and secondary influences, and I think education does need to become more vocational - perhaps a more balanced curriculum that allows regular time for work experience. Education shouldn't just be academia. But the secondary influences can only truly impact if the primary influences are steadfast - good parenting, good values, being the best you can be.

It's frustrating that nobody is really talking about this - I can't recall one strong education message from any party during the current campaign.

[Brad]

The current education system doesn't equip anyone with the knowledge of real life skills before the age of 18 (buying a house, good financing, etc. etc), but I think Graham is going to the extreme.

I'm still not convinced it is now the function of the education system to teach someone about buying a house for e.g. Though I do think the life skills bit is worth consideration.

Buying a house is a life skill. Why not make it a function of the education system? It's better that people learn how to do these things as it's necessary unlike a vast number of things learnt at school. I think it has always been necessary as most young people are pretty much clueless about these things after they've left school and need to know them. They learn that hard way. It's something that has needed to be done for many, many years and what better time to do it than now after the financial crisis we have faced?

[Blondini]

Surely Graham simply means bad education? No-one could seriously suggest that education in general is bad? It's the way it's run and has - apparently - been dumbed down over the past two decades that is bad. I never thought my education was particularly bad back in the late eighties.

Green Party Manifesto
The most amazing thing i've read since Life Of Pi. My jaw hit the floor several times reading it but i believed in Richard Parker. It goes from rights for travellers ("gypsies" not holiday-makers!) to a "People's Bank" taken out of the hands of irresponsible bankers (page 46 - an impossible dream? Ask Dave ) to a non-means tested Basic Income for all replacing the benefits system (page 84) to namedropping Edward Snowden and tackling surveillance. Watch out, Big Brother, you're history! The benefits replacement proposal even has its own separate mini manifesto. They say such things as this and the banks regulation would be longterm plans over successive governments, suggesting something started in coalition/case-by-case partnership leading to full government and beyond. "20 year plan" said a local candidate on the radio here.

There's also a section on LGBTIQs - since when did "queers" get listed alongside "gays" and surely they're the same thing? have you seen some of the even longer alternatives?

The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual) has also resulted, although such initialisms are sometimes criticized for being confusing and leaving some people out, as well as issues of placement of the letters within the new title. However, adding the term "allies" to the acronym has sparked controversy, with some seeing the inclusion of "ally" as opposed to "asexual" a form of asexual erasure. There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer).[

Sorry but this is ridiculous! Just shorten it to "Free" or something!

Schools is page 37, Graham. Good job you're not standing.

[Blondini]

Surely Graham simply means bad education? No-one could seriously suggest that education in general is bad? It's the way it's run and has - apparently - been dumbed down over the past two decades that is bad. I never thought my education was particularly bad back in the late eighties.

Green Party Manifesto
The most amazing thing i've read since Life Of Pi. My jaw hit the floor several times reading it but i believed in Richard Parker. It goes from rights for travellers ("gypsies" not holiday-makers!) to a "People's Bank" taken out of the hands of irresponsible bankers (page 46 - an impossible dream? Ask Dave ) to a non-means tested Basic Income for all replacing the benefits system (page 53) to namedropping Edward Snowden and tackling surveillance. Watch out, Big Brother, you're history! The benefits replacement proposal even has its own separate mini manifesto. They say such things as this and the banks regulation would be longterm plans over successive governments, suggesting something started in coalition/case-by-case partnership leading to full government and beyond. "20 year plan" said a local candidate on the radio here.

There's also a section on LGBTIQs - since when did "queers" get listed alongside "gays" and surely they're the same thing? have you seen some of the even longer alternatives?

The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, panssexual) has also resulted, although such initialisms are sometimes criticized for being confusing and leaving some people out, as well as issues of placement of the letters within the new title. However, adding the term "allies" to the acronym has sparked controversy, with some seeing the inclusion of "ally" as opposed to "asexual" a form of asexual erasure. There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer).[

Sorry but this is ridiculous! Just shorten it to "Free" or something!

Schools is page 37, Graham. Good job you're not standing.

EDIT: if you can't be bothered to read it, a summary:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32300555

[Brad]

I looked up 'queer' and it's an umbrella term for anyone who falls out of gender and sexuality "norms" rather than the derogatory term.

[Blondini]

I looked up 'queer' and it's an umbrella term for anyone who falls out of gender and sexuality "norms" rather than the derogatory term.

Yeah, i saw that, too. But it's confusing, surely? Why make something simple more complicated? LGBT is enough letters!

[Graham76man]

I am suggesting it's BAD
It's going to the place with people that the same age that's the REAL problem. It's fine up to the age of about 12 or when a person starts going into puberty. But after that that's the problem. You see us humans alive now have the bodies of hunter-gathers of around 10,000 years ago. They were geared up to look after children up to about 12 years of age. At which point if you were well fed, the body would start changing. The effect of this was to reject the parents influence and the young adult would seek "outside" influences. These before the school leaving age was increased past 12, would be from a wide varity of ages and persons. Thus ensuring proper development of the social skills needed in life. These include selecting perspective partners of the future. In fact we select the kind of people we are going to have as partners from the characteristics of the people around us shortly after puberty. Speaking personally I can say all the female types I have been interested in my life our based on several girls I hung around with while I was 14 only. For others it will vary depending on who they met around that sort of age and when they started puberty. Nevertheless with the introduction of compulsory education past 12 and the fact that humans are well fed now, whereas in the past certainly before the 1950's many kids were late developing puberty, and in England could leave School at 14, many would change mixing with a wide range of people. So anyone past 80 could well have devolved normally as designed. Those under that age will have been influenced in their development by kids mostly. You have to also bear in mind that process only works in the daylight hours, so if you are stuck in a classroom with 20 to 30 14- year-olds, you will grow up being influenced by them only.
You can't teach life skills. If your not confident stuck in a room being thrown black-board rubbers at by the only adult then your not going to pick up confidence. If you are a girl stuck around lads aged 14, since testosterone is pouring out of them, you will end attracted to males who have high levels of that, such as sporting types - or the ones that will beat the crap out of you!
Then there's the girl in the class who's leaking pheromones that bad she stinks. But she's also if you are a male causing a body reaction to make you attracted to certain females in the future who produce only small amounts of that chemical. Not always with positive results.
In hunter/gathers days groups of males would bond together and form a group. This behaviour is still found now. Especially in schools, but these were groups were not all of the same age, so each would contribute to the group. But the gangs of the school are the same age and have no experience of life greater than the other members, so there is infighting. False information is easily spread. Then add sex to the mix and hormones that can make the kids angry, mad, sexy, sad, depressed, frustrated.
After the process is finished they leave school and have kids themselves. But they don't know how to bring up the kids like there parents did them, so they adopt new ways and when these fail, they blame it on the kids - TV or something else. Then they say it's the fault of the teachers and spend money on education and turn the school into what some teachers call day jails for kids - complete with fences and security cameras. They even rank the schools and get governments to adjust it so they can send the kids to decent schools and the rest are seen on TV on channel four of five.
Of course their kids still go into puberty in the decent school and become bankers. While others crash aeroplanes into building because they believe in things which would horrify their parents.

Meanwhile a bunch of academics at Oxbridge debate how we should correctly name someone, while watching the boat race, before joining the Green Party.

And Graham writes about how Education causes these problems, but is ignored. Well you can't go to a member of Parliament and say that spending money on education is like giving grants to Jimmy Saville types to promote children's charities. Can you
Or go to a book publisher who's been educated at Oxbridge and say that we need to radically change the education system.

[4warduntodawn]

I got 60% conservative and 40% UKIP

[4warduntodawn]

Boris just did a brilliant post on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/p ... 3821751317