back to article Lib Dems pledge to end 'Orwellian' snooping powers in manifesto

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to end the "Orwellian nightmare" of mass-snooping powers in the Investigatory Powers Act ahead of their manifesto launch. They will propose to roll back state surveillance powers by ending the indiscriminate bulk collection of communications data and internet connection records. The party …

Bronze badge

Can We Have The Real Spitting Image Back....

Hi,

This does remind me (Liberals just need to get into power) of a Spitting Image episode where they were taking the mickey out of Paddy Ashdown.

In every scene he was in, he would state "We are neither this, nor that, but somewhere in between" - as this was always the Liberal slogan, that they were middle of the road.

The repeated episode slogan "We are neither this, nor that, but somewhere in between" was put to good use when he was challenged about his affair with a secretary where upon he replied :

"I neither touched the right leg, nor the left leg, but...." and we then cut to the next sketch.

Absolute classic.

Regards,

Shadmeister.

22
5
Anonymous Coward

Costing the taxpayer billions is an important feature of an Orwellian society. The goal of which was to destroy the excess of human productively in a psychologically acceptable way. As opposed to say building pointless walls, then demolishing them over and over.

19
1
Silver badge

"Labour's leaked manifesto did not mention the subject of government mass surveillance."

Well, why would they? They voted for it in the first place, and I think as far back as 2004 the Labour government wanted these types of snooping.

41
0
Silver badge

Further back

Oh, much further than that.

Much, much further.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

given their record

in the most unlikely event LibDem do get into Tories' boots, how can I trust they don't go back on their pledge once in the office, given their previous record?

p.s. Labour keep shtum, because they know they can't win this election, but hey, just in case, just in case... they wouldn't mind having those powers. On many issues, including privacy and snooping, they're just as bad as the Tories. After all, we need to keep them plebs, sorry, our, our... comrades, in their place!

14
18
Anonymous Coward

Re: given their record

"[...] how can I trust they don't go back on their pledge once in the office, given their previous record?"

It was the Lib-Dems in the Coalition that put the dampers on May's last attempt to get these surveillance laws passed.

After taking so much election punishment for not stopping all the Tories' changes - the Lib-Dems are now saying there wouldn't be another coalition.

Labour have had an authoritarian streak for several decades. Roy Jenkins was probably the last Labour Home Secretary who actively sought to liberalise laws. Corbyn's idealism - and the nature of his close circle - make it highly likely that he would use totalitarian measures as "the end justifies the means".

51
4
Bronze badge

Re: given their record

They didn't "put the dampers" on it - they completely blocked it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/theresa-may-revive-snoopers-charter-lib-dem-brakes-off-privacy-election

May said in a BBC interview: “David Cameron has already said, and I’ve said, that a Conservative government would be giving the security agencies and law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to ensure they’re keeping up to date as people communicate with communications data.

“We were prevented from bringing in that legislation into the last government because of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats and we are determined to bring that through, because we believe that is necessary to maintain the capabilities for our law enforcement agencies such that they can continue to do the excellent job, day in and day out, of keeping us safe and secure.”

34
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: given their record

By "their record", I assume you're looking back at the 1910-1914 Asquith administration, the last time there was a Liberal government.

Or did you really expect that the junior partner in a coalition would somehow be able to implement all their own policies, even when they were in conflict with the larger party's policies?

33
0

Re: given their record

It's not Lib Dems you have to worry about going back on their word, they were the minority party in a coalition, they had no say in the Uni fees against the Cons and that pig-lover.

And don't read into the above that I am a lib, lab or Con voter...I distrust all of them equally and believe that there will be no change until the whole system is scrapped, it doesn't work.

But, this is probably the one pledge I can get behind, just because the Snoopers Charter is enough to make Kim-Jong blush - so it does get my vote.

37
2
Silver badge

Re: given their record

"After taking so much election punishment for not stopping all the Tories' changes - the Lib-Dems are now saying there wouldn't be another coalition."

Joining the coalition was the responsible thing to do. The consequence says much about the sense of responsibility of so many of their voters.

Unfortunately the typical Lib-Dem voter has been a protest voter. It didn't sit well with them that their party became a junior party of government. It's easy to make this and that unrealistic demand as a protest not expecting to have to deliver. It came as a nasty shock to discover that when faced with reality things weren't that easy.

20
2
Silver badge

Re: given their record

"I distrust all of them equally and believe that there will be no change until the whole system is scrapped, it doesn't work."

Yes, democracy is the worst possible system of government apart from all the others.

11
4

Re: given their record

"I distrust all of them equally and believe that there will be no change until the whole system is scrapped, it doesn't work."

It may not work for YOU (or me for that matter), but the system works very, very well for THEM!

5
0
Silver badge

Re: given their record

in the most unlikely event LibDem do get into Tories' boots, how can I trust they don't go back on their pledge once in the office, given their previous record?

You cannot trust anyone, previous record or not.

But I would prefer to put my trust in what they say they will do, than face the certainty we will have a more Orwellian future if Conservatives win, and the likelihood of that if Labour do.

Clegg screwed up big time, and "sorry" doesn't cut it. The Lib-Dems rightly suffered for that betrayal but two things have changed; with hindsight we can see that Lib-Dems were a more restraining influence than it seemed at the time, and the party is under new management. Lessons do seem to have been learned.

18
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: given their record

"[...] how can I trust they don't go back on their pledge once in the office, given their previous record?"

If you are talking about their pledge to oppose increasing student tuition fees when they were the minority partner in the coalition, then they certainly had their balls slammed in the door over that. It is not an experience they are likely to forget.

And what are the other options, since neither Labour nor the Conservatives have made any commitments about people's privacy, and instead have considerable form for introducing Orwellian laws. The Liberal Democrats - despite their considerable failings in other areas - have at least consistently opposed them.

17
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: given their record

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_2GSQlWsAAh6aQ.jpg

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: given their record

I am more concerned that they dropped their promise to legalise marijuana like a hot potato when the Tories demanded it before there could be a coalition.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "democracy is the worst possible system of government apart from all the others"

I am sick of that stupid quote. (Which twit came up with it?) There are an infinite number of possible systems of government and you can argue till the cows come home about which of them qualify as "democratic". Although democracy seems to be a Good Thing, it is clearly not the case that every system which some/most/everyone call "democratic" is superior to every system which some/most/everyone do not call "democratic".

4
1
Silver badge

shame

This election would be a great time for potential opposition parties to offer people a choice and possibly move away from the tories. Unfortunately only the tories and UKIP accept the reality (brexit) and UKIP isnt much of a force at the moment even if last election they were the ones with a plan for leave. The libs could be offering a different possibility after brexit but instead the liberal democrats want to oppose democracy. Labour truly do want to take the country to the 1970's so anyone crying brexit was about being backward couldnt possibly vote for the magic money tree nutters.

I really do hate to think the only viable party this time will be the tories. No real opposition. No other visions for the future.

6
43
Silver badge

Re: shame

No other visions for the future.

That "other" is superfluous, as the Conservatives don't have a vision. Just a collection of inconsistent, muddle-headed policies made up on the hoof by the prime minister, jumbled up with a selective adherence to manifesto commitments, cowardly compliance with all manner of previous commitments by former Idiot's-In-Chief, and a total disregard for common sense, and the routine refusal to admit fault.

We really should seal the Palace of Westminster with them all inside, and have Rentokil fumigate it.

28
2
Silver badge

Re: shame

"Unfortunately only the tories and UKIP accept the reality (brexit)"

What dimension are you in? A "no deal Brexit" is only a reality because May has done enough to piss everyone off that the rest of the EU aren't even considering working with a pig-headed old trout who has absolutely no idea what she's doing and has all the charisma of week old porridge. Yes we're going to get Brexit, everyone is over that now. What the people want is the best deal for us. But as with everything, in our every day lives, you can't just go to someone and say "Yeah we want A, B, C, and er yeah that's it really. No we're not giving you anything in return we demand A, B, C! What? You won't give it to us? Fine, we don't need you or A, B, C anyway!". That's what Brexit has been about so far.

For an example, the border question with the Republic of Ireland, how there won't be a hard border. OK, that's nice, but the Republic is a European country with free movement of people, and the UK won't allow free movement of people. But if you have a soft border or something like what's there now, well if you're from France you can just visit Ireland and walk across in to Northern Ireland and in to the UK. So if we can't have a free movement of people, but you don't want a hard border, I'm not sure how they can think that's acheiveable?

You haven't read the manifesto of any party, and that's obvious from your choice of words regarding Labour's idea for the country. It was The Daily Fail that started the whole "dragging us back to the 1970's" line, and why wouldn't they say that? Paul Dacre is very good friends with Frau May.

It comes down to simple enough terms, if people bothered to look for themselves. The country is in debt, and this country has spent 7 years in "austerity" in order to get out of the "deficit". We were all promised that would be over by 2015. But apparently that isn't the case, and we've been borrowing more.

I don't think anyone actually cares whether we borrow money or not. It's not like your household whereby if you run out of money you lose everything. That'll never happen. The country won't go broke because a few pound is borrowed. What people care about is where the money goes. Over the weekend we find out that the NHS made a funding request of about £5.5 million to make a deal with Microsoft in order to provide updates to the computers ran by the organisation. That was declined. Yet a funding request for £7.5 million was approved to rennovate some big grand house, owned by a multi-millionare. The example, I know, sounds like a basis for class war but I don't mean it to be. What I want to put across is £7 million spent on a house to be enjoyed by a few people isn't exactly a great way to spend money if £5 million is needed to secure the security of a system used by over 60 million people.

Really for many people like myself who weren't even an itch in our fathers scrotum in the 1970's, we don't know what it was like other than seeing mass union action and Thatcher running about saying she won't be turned. We can only deal with what we've seen, and for all of my working life I have worked in a country of austerity, by a government who really don't care about me. Their polices haven't benefitted me yet I seem to be giving them more and more money or leeway to do what they want. So of course, if another party says "No more austerity, we're going to nationalise everything and keep the money inside the country" then why wouldn't that be a better idea rather than privatising our mail service for pennies and getting a crap service in return (as one example)?

There's a lot of problems in this country, and we're a rich nation. We shouldn't be having 3rd world problems like homelessness and child poverty in a country that plays host to huge multi-trillion business deals every day. No one wants Russia-style communisim. We want fairness. The weak shouldn't suffer what they must, in order to sustain favourable conditions for people who have the majority of wealth.

61
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

This.....

2
1

Re: shame

"I don't think anyone actually cares whether we borrow money or not."

A thoughtful and lucid answer. YOU WILL BE DESTROYED!

But seriously, I wish you were right. Many people DO care about the borrowing, national debt, etc. as a thing. It's not a thing; it's a couple of numbers, and the economy for real people isn't about some esoteric national financial budgeting deal, it's about whether you can afford to live a decent life, and whether those around you can do so without resorting to crime that affects you.

Unfortunately the Tories and their masters' newspapers have convinced people otherwise. Online and in person, I've heard LOTS of people tell me that the deficit is the most important thing to them - even though most don't understand the difference between structural deficit and national debt.

So now that the Tories have reframed the debate into one of whether we can balance the books, they can win the debate. Of course they have shown over 7 years that they can't balance the books, but as long as they and the Mail say they can, they win enough votes (eg 37%) to inflict their "tax cuts for the rich, austerity for the masses" ideology.

Remember the pre "strong and stable" days? Every time Dave wanted to spend money on his mates, he'd tell us it was possible because we had a strong economy. Every time he wanted to take money away from the plebs, he'd tell us we couldn't afford it because of the mess Labour had left us in.

Labour - and indeed anybody else - struggle to fight this tide, as they talk about what we will spend money on. If Labour pledge a single pound, the Tories fight back with their "where is the money coming from" mantra, amplified by the twin megaphones of Dacre and Murdoch.

23
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

One thing that I always wonder is that if every country on the planet owes money then which planet is it owed to?

It's like there's an elite that want to keep austerity going because it suits them nicely.

14
1
Bronze badge
Unhappy

Re: shame

"No other visions for the future."

Nope, 'cos the country isn't run by the Tories, Labour, Libs, none of it matters who gets in, the real power lies with the Civil Service. All those Sir Humphreys, having worked their way up the greasy pole are desperate to keep their super-annuated pension schemes intact and make sure no one tries to rock the boat. Release all the manifestos and such like you like, it makes no difference because none of it can ever be done unless the Civil Service allows it to happen.

Face it, "Yes, Minster" was not a comedy, it was documentary!

12
1
Silver badge

Re: shame

@ Ledswinger

Yup. Upvote from me. We really need some alternatives.

@ wolfetone

"A "no deal Brexit" is only a reality because"

The EU dictated it. In or out no half measure full stop oh and send a load of money over before any form of negotiation can be possible. The rights for citizens to remain are held up because the EU refuses to do it and we aint stupid enough to unilaterally agree to it (a mark against a few 'opposition' parties right there).

"But as with everything, in our every day lives, you can't just go to someone and say"

true but the wrong way around. The EU dictates they want money before any form of negotiation, and after saying they wont negotiate we are either in or out. If they cant handle this simple negotiation of their own club then why would we want them representing us on a world stage? The worst they can think of to do to us is no deal. For us no deal is a very good deal and a bad deal would be worse.

"It was The Daily Fail that started the whole "dragging us back to the 1970's" line"

If you want the Fail to get credit for spotting the economic disaster that is the Labour leak then ok.

"The country is in debt, and this country has spent 7 years in "austerity" in order to get out of the "deficit""

It has been in debt for a long time. And the overspending of labour gave us a deficit in the biggest boom etc due to 'no more boom and bust'. The EU is trying to climb out of a hole of its own making and shocked everyone by sacrificing countries instead of dealing with the problem of its currency. Shame this wonderful trading partner is trying to just keep its head above deflation. And yes the Tories were idiots for proposing a time frame like that, but then they are the same gov that rigged the referendum and threatened a punishment budget.

"The example, I know, sounds like a basis for class war but I don't mean it to be"

You get no argument from me. This is where alternatives to tory would be lovely. Maybe a range of views of how to proceed, after brexit.

"We can only deal with what we've seen, and for all of my working life I have worked in a country of austerity, by a government who really don't care about me"

You are very young then to have missed the labour gov. That was not a time of austerity it was a time of throwing money at any perceived problem, knee jerk reactions, bloating public sector and a belief that economics was a thing of the past so all go for the magic money tree. Something that led directly to the situation we are in. Give aways to buy votes only to upset people when they can no longer be afforded.

"Their polices haven't benefitted me yet I seem to be giving them more and more money or leeway to do what they want"

This is where I would hope a learning experience would improve the voter (assuming choice at election time) where we are paying now for the expenditure before. The money was spent by labour and you have already had the benefits of it. Now the bill is due. Dont feel too bad, we are all in the same boat and a few of us were warning of this for some time before the recession.

"So of course, if another party says "No more austerity, we're going to nationalise everything and keep the money inside the country" "

Its a great idea if you want to spend loads more money (increase debt) increase costs (deficit blow out again) and reduce tax intake. That means we get to pay even more and wont see any real improvements as the gov sucks at running these things. That money you dream of will be worthless and the bill will still be due.

"There's a lot of problems in this country, and we're a rich nation."

Yes. And economically competent options with varying ideas of proceeding would still leave us with problems but different ones and hopefully lesser ones.

"We shouldn't be having 3rd world problems like homelessness and child poverty"

Not 3rd world problems unfortunately. That is a misrepresentation of the reality (not accusing you, biased groups are very good at this). Also a lot of our housing problems dont come from a lack of money as in 3rd world, it comes from regulation. Literally choosing to have a housing problem.

"No one wants Russia-style communisim. We want fairness. "

Problem. Russian style communism can be argued as fair (as the communists do). There is no such thing as fair. Fair is a word that means nothing, nada, zilch. It is a dangerous word just like moral which also means nothing. Because they mean nothing they can be used to pull at heart strings for arguments on either side without the need to resort to reality, facts or tricky things like evidence. Fair will bankrupt a country, starve a country, kill people. But its ok because it is fair.

8
22
Silver badge

Re: shame

"The EU dictated it."

No, it was the Brexit vote that dictated it. OTOH you're right about why we're in an economic mess so an upvote from me.

12
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

We are going to continue having problems with homelessness and poverty regardless of whom is voted in.

Yearly housing growth.

+ ~180k homes

Yearly population growth (last years figures)

- 273k net migration

- 187k births to non British born parents

- 507k births to British born parents

= 787,000 homes short per year. (or 393.5k short, if you arbitrarily assume everybody is going to cohabit)

Politicians are not going to change that, unless they axe planning regulations stopping homes from being built. They won't do this because the rich urbanites describing themselves as the "green lobby" (while feeding trees into their trendy wood burners which pollute the area) are opposed to building adequate numbers of housing for the huge number of people who they want allowed into the UK. And since these people are the key supporters of Mr Corbyn, why would you expect him to support policies that as a group his supporters oppose?

The stark truth is that for our youth, the best hope is that the NHS melts down and all the baby boomers die off prematurely freeing up vast quantities of housing stock. Otherwise, the younger generations are unlikely to have enough houses available to live in regardless of whom is voted in.

7
7
Bronze badge

Re: shame

RE: 787K homes short a year...

Where are these people living then? You've also not included how many people die each year in the UK. IIRC that's about 400K. So that leaves 300K+ people every year added to those living on the streets? No. they are living somewhere. Try again.

7
2
Silver badge

Re: shame

Labour truly do want to take the country to the 1970's

Hearing this must have confused the UKIP core, who would love to take the country back to the 1970s so they could watch the Black And White Minstrel Show once more and pay women less than men for the same work. They've already voted in a referendum to take the country back to 1973 and can't understand why it hasn't happened yet.

18
7
Silver badge

Re: shame

@codejunky

You make some good points, well one or two, however your arguments are fundamentally wrong because you are essentially blaming everything on the Labour government. Which makes me think you're Grant Schapps.

I'm not sure where you were, but in 2008 we had a financial crisis. Well we didn't, the world had it. But Northern Rock, Lloyds, RBS had to be bailed out. All the money borrowed from the IMF etc went through to bail out those financial instituitons (to name a few). It went on a scrappage scheme to help keep the economy afloat. If it's Labour's fault that they didn't let these banks go under, I could maybe agree. But to blame Labour for borrowing loads of money without giving the reason I can't agree with.

Also your (obvious) distain for the EU is clouding your judgement. Juncker said - quite rightly - that UK can't just cherry pick the best bits and then leave without contributing. You can't tell your landlord or car provider that you don't want the flat/car anymore and that you refuse to contribute anything to it, even though you have agreed a rent or payment plan in advance of that which you're bound to. Like I said, which I notice you didn't pick up on, the border question. And you'll find that the issue the EU has is with the free movement of people, which the UK doesn't want. But the UK want a soft border with the Republic of Ireland. You can't have both. You have to be an almighty idiot to believe you can. Not just on the principle, but on the practice.

I'm sorry, but it's a 3rd world problem. We're one of the richest countries in the world, HOW can we not make sure every child has one or two meals (let alone warm) a day, and how can we not make sure the homeless have somewhere safe to sleep? Jesus even a disused car park with 8ft fences around it would be better than forcing these people to sleep in doorways.

Being fair doesn't mean nothing. It means what it means. It isn't fair, for example, someone who is terminally ill with cancer to have some dickhead make them stand up and walk 10 paces as a test to see if they can work when there are plenty of wankers in this country avoiding paying what the law states they owe.

It isn't fair that a bunch of old men who had the benefit of free education their whole lives should then turn round to my generation and say "ah sorry guys you need to pay for university now".

It isn't fair that those same wankers who sit there should cheer that benefits for the unemployed and disabled should be cut, when they take home £80,000 a year in wages on top of expenses that we can't fully check because they're redacted.

It isn't fair that the very very same wankers sit there saying "we need a raise of £10,000 per annum" refuse to give nurses even a 1% pay increase on their wages.

It's because of people like you, who believe fairness is something that can't be achieved, have let this happen. And regardless of my youth (and I lived under a Tory government once before, I remember John Major on his soap box, and the Tory Blair governments) I know what is right, and I refuse - like others - to accept the bullshit we are fed that we can't afford to help the people in this country.

But the minute someone in an oil rich country does something bad, oh no no no no plenty of money for dropping bombs and sending youngster in to kill innocent people over there. Plenty of fucking money for that!

32
2
Silver badge

Re: shame

@ Doctor Syntax

"No, it was the Brexit vote that dictated it."

Really? So the UK dictated that a huge bill must be paid before any negotiation, and that negotiation is not up for negotiation unless the EU do exactly what we want and then we may possibly humour any additional thoughts?

I think you may need to check your belief against the reality. It was the EU talking about pillars which must be adhered to. While of course making a trade deal with Canada who wont need to have free movement etc. The EU really does look like a dog chasing its tail.

1
22
Silver badge

Re: shame

"Really? So the UK dictated that a huge bill must be paid before any negotiation, and that negotiation is not up for negotiation unless the EU do exactly what we want and then we may possibly humour any additional thoughts?"

Do you ever walk in to the Savoy for afternoon tea, then go to leave without paying the bill?

"I'm sorry, I only ordered afternoon tea. The negotiation of price never happened, so therefore I don't have to pay".

16
2
Silver badge

Re: shame

@ wolfetone

"essentially blaming everything on the Labour government"

I can only blame the wrong actions of those running our country. There was a global recession and labour isnt to blame for that. However labour ran a deficit during a boom, a huge boom. They overspent and left the country in a bad position by inflating the public sector which is a constant running cost, their terrible energy policies which have left us with much higher energy costs and give aways to buy votes. All which cannot be rolled back without people crying about the evil tories (or whoever dare remove them).

"that UK can't just cherry pick the best bits and then leave without contributing. You can't tell your landlord or car provider that you don't want the flat/car anymore and that you refuse to contribute anything to it,"

Very true. Except we didnt rent our membership, it was a partnership where we all bought assets together with financially strong countries (e.g. UK) were the main contributors and so hold a stake in those assets. If we wish to liquidate an asset (leave the membership) we should be paid for that and of course meet our liabilities we promised. Unfortunately the EU are so incompetent they just want to bash us and then claim we are unreasonable for not bowing to their madness.

"I'm sorry, but it's a 3rd world problem."

Also sorry but not 3rd world. While not good it is not to the standards of the 3rd world. To think it is can cause perception problems of absolute and relative. As I said this is a technique used to guilt people into thinking we are worse than we are so as not to think critically about the situation. On the plus side the cost of food should fall once we are out of the EU so brexit would help the poor.

"Being fair doesn't mean nothing."

Gonna address each point but fair means nothing. Seriously it is a manipulation word not an actual measurable word.

"when there are plenty of wankers in this country avoiding paying what the law states they owe"

That would be tax evasion which is illegal and clamped down on. Unfortunately I get the feeling you mean tax avoidance which is legal and intentionally legal because the law has no legal right to that money.

"old men who had the benefit of free education their whole lives should then turn round to my generation and say "ah sorry guys you need to pay for university now"."

Incorrect measurement. You are correct on the condition that the financial situation hasnt changed (doubt this is the issue here though) and the numbers/acceptance rate is the same (absolutely not and is a problem). Again labours give away of free uni to all fell over when the money ran out. We cannot afford it. It is too expensive. It leads to worthless degrees and shifts the requirement of teaching from school to college and college to uni.

"It isn't fair that those same wankers who sit there should cheer that benefits for the unemployed and disabled should be cut, when they take home £80,000 a year in wages on top of expenses that we can't fully check because they're redacted."

This I can somewhat agree with. Although the reduction of the few high paid will not save as much money as the reduction across the many and that reduction is so deep due to protecting other areas of public spending due to 'fairness'. And while money is given away during a boom it cannot continue during a recession. A properly managed economy pre-recession could have reduced this need to cut spending.

"It isn't fair that the very very same wankers sit there saying "we need a raise of £10,000 per annum" refuse to give nurses even a 1% pay increase on their wages."

Private workers also had their wages frozen. Is it fair for the public sector to take money from those frozen wages to pay higher wages to their own?

"It's because of people like you, who believe fairness is something that can't be achieved"

I dont believe fairness can be achieved because fairness is not measurable or real. Is it fair to steal money from someone who has earned it? No. Is it fair for some to live very lavish lifestyles and others to starve to death? No. And there is a huge range of opinion over what that middle bit is with both sides claiming fairness for their point of view. I believe there are many ways to live, some ignorant of economics and so terrible (people suffer) vs economically viable and a wide range of possibilities depending what kind of country we want to live in.

"I know what is right"

Blair still believes he was right. For the many bad things he did he still thinks he was right. Corbyn thinks he is. Farage does. Maggie did. Even the BNP know they are right. I wont comment on May, Cameron and the lib dem chap as they may do or they may just be looking for votes.

4
3
Silver badge

Re: shame

@ wolfetone

"Do you ever walk in to the Savoy for afternoon tea, then go to leave without paying the bill?

"I'm sorry, I only ordered afternoon tea. The negotiation of price never happened, so therefore I don't have to pay"."

Never been. However the fact that your buying a service and the commercial aspect is blatant (often achieved with menu's) resolves that confusion.

The real question is when one of the shareholders decides to leave do they suddenly get threats and a bill because the others cant accept someone would dare leave? Or do they get on with the transaction of assets/liabilities and part ways? If you think we have been renting space in the EU then you must see us as a lesser member/visitor and not a partner/member of the structure. If we are so insignificant to them why do they have such difficulty with us leaving?

3
4
Silver badge

Re: shame for Timmy B

Where are these people living then?

They are cohabiting, renting rooms in shared housing rather their own flat or house, living with parents. And in the case of many low wage migrant workers, they're hot bunking in dormitories because there's nowhere affordable to rent. You might choose to turn a blind eye, but I can see this out of my window, where even in the sticks there's loads of working adults living with their parents, clagging the pavement up with their cars because there's insufficient drive space.

If you bothered to look at ONS data, you'd see that there's been rising housing demand and shrinking supply for decades. The average housing price outstrips any credible affordability for young adults. In London and the SE, average property price for first time buyers was £430k. Even in the West Mids it was £140k. How many young working adults who haven't been to university can afford that? And if you're a graduate with a debt of £40-50k already round your neck, how's that going to work?

There's currently about 3.3 million young adults aged 20-34 living with their parents at the moment. How many do your really think WANT to be there? There's an increasing population of older "singletons" a rise of over a million since 2001, rising life expectancy, increases in the number of unrelated adults living together, and in "multi-family" households, where parents with children are house-sharing with their own parents, in-laws, aunts or uncles. By any reasonable measure there is a suppressed housing need of AT LEAST 5m homes in the UK, and on top of that the "rate of household formation" requires about 250k properties a year to be built every year. Until housebuilding reaches 250k a year (which it won't for another couple of years, and then maybe not) that backlog is increasing.

You might have your head in the sand, but we have a huge housing crisis. It is made worse by reactionary green belt policies, by planning that seeks to oppose development, development land prices and government policies that encourage expensive yet shitty high density developments, by wages stagnating as house prices rise, and by policies that continue to encourage new jobs in locations where there's already housing and transport problems. And that's without even thinking about the poor quality of much of the older housing stock.

10
0
dvd

Re: shame

The money's owed to you if you have government bonds in your pension.......

1
0
Silver badge

Re: shame

So if we can't have a free movement of people, but you don't want a hard border, I'm not sure how they can think that's acheiveable?

National Identity Cards.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

RE: 787K homes short a year...

Where are these people living then? You've also not included how many people die each year in the UK. IIRC that's about 400K. So that leaves 300K+ people every year added to those living on the streets? No. they are living somewhere. Try again.

Record levels of young adults living at home, says ONS (The Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jan/21/record-levels-young-adults-living-home-ons.

I maintain that we aren't building anywhere near enough houses to cope with population expansion and this is why house prices have tripled in 20 years. When demand exceeds supply then the price rises.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: shame

"When demand exceeds supply then the price rises."

When you sell off your social housing stock, but instead of building more homes you flitter away the money, then demand exceeds supply forcing people in to private rented accomodation, by which the landlords increase their rental prices because they know they're in demand.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

"While of course making a trade deal with Canada who wont need to have free movement etc. "

However - future trade deals with China, India, and The Philippines are all being signalled as entailing freer access to work in the UK for their nationals.

The Conservative Minister Priti Patel said that BREXIT meant that EU migrants would no longer have the immigration privilege to which they were not historically entailed.

Instead she welcomed replacing them with immigrants from the Indian subcontinent.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-brexit-will-boost-india-uk-ties-british-minister-priti-patel-2227415

10
0
Silver badge

Re: shame

@AC

"However - future trade deals with China, India, and The Philippines are all being signalled as entailing freer access to work in the UK for their nationals."

Excellent. So working with the emerging markets with the desire and will to grow in skills while able to cooperate on projects globally as China especially is global looking and India is massively reforming (cant speak to the Philippines). This sounds like a much better prospect and freer for their nationals doesnt mean unrestricted free access as long as you live in the right place which is a bit unequal (word typically thrown around for this kind of action being racist or xenophobe, or at least if a leaver suggests it).

What is wrong with being global looking and especially when interacting with countries the EU negotiators are behind in their negotiations yet critically emerging as global actors. I am all for getting out of the cartel and looking to a more global approach. Better than the 'nationalistic' view of hiding within the EU borders.

"BREXIT meant that EU migrants would no longer have the immigration privilege"

Quick note- the EU wont negotiate. Not even on the rights of brits to remain in the EU if that is where they have moved to. Without that agreement we are not unilaterally giving such a right (we aint idiots). As for future migration from the EU- why should it get special treatment? It shouldnt be treated any worse, we should treat it as any other country in the world. We should welcome the skills we want/need.

1
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

"National Identity Cards"

That's an upside, if you're a former Home Secretary (or a member of either main party in government this century)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame

One of the most pro-Brexit voices where I worked (at the time) was very (loudly) concerned about "immigrants taking all the housing" so his children wouldn't be able to afford anything.

Now, we could ignore the minor detail that the lack of housing in his town is mostly down to the local council refusing to allow any new building "to protect the countryside", or the fact that almost no-one settled in that town because they came across views like his (views which vanished when treatment needed by the 'immigrant' A&E staff), or we could say supply & demand. If he's worried about demand, they could easily increase supply - but oh no, not in their backyard, no siree, council won't allow it ....

6
0
Silver badge

Re: shame

One thing that I always wonder is that if every country on the planet owes money then which planet is it owed to?

It's like there's an elite that want to keep austerity going because it suits them nicely.

That's - almost the opposite of true.

The money is owed to people who can afford to lend it, i.e. bankers and other rich people. They're the ones who own all those government bonds. "Government debt" is a way of funnelling money from tomorrow's taxpayers to people who have spare cash now. That's why debt is a bad thing: it actually entrenches inequality.

That's why, however much the Tories (in the UK)/Republicans (in the US) talk about reducing the deficit when they're in opposition, when they get into government, somehow it invariably runs up just as fast as under the other party. The only person in living memory who seriously tried to break this pattern was Thatcher.

The other half of the analysis is that "austerity" is a really stupid, counterproductive way of lowering the deficit. And everyone knows this. But it is politically useful.

1
1
Bronze badge

Re: shame for Ledswinger

You hit the problem right on the head. Building new houses isn't the problem. The amount of people is. Either we are going to have to have new models of housing where people live in smaller flats or similar multiple occupancy dwellings or less people. Even if we build more houses they are beyond the reach of many people financially and will continue to be. Out of all of the new development where I live the average price is well above what anyone without a well paid job could afford. The solution? Simple - where two houses were built 20 flats could have been built. instead of housing 2 families - say 10 people - you are then housing 20 to 30 people. We have to get used to the idea that we - as a species - are crowding ourselves out. We can either keep populating and use up all the space we need to actually live or we can stop breeding like rabbits. If we do the at some point a fox will appear.

0
2
Silver badge

Re: shame @Rich11

Does the 11 equate to your age or IQ?

0
2
Bronze badge

Re: shame for Ledswinger

@Timmy B

It's worse than that, for the majority they have been building 4/5 bed 'Executive' homes as they are more profitable (per Sq ft).

Where there is more of a need for Flats, 1 and 2 bed homes.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: shame for Ledswinger

The solution to the housing crisis in the "not having enough builders" is quite blatantly to reintroduce prefabs as used to get out of both figurative and literal holes left by the Luftwaffe's extensive house clearance operation in WW2, and import timber frame flat pack houses from the USA which largely use a different skill set to build to traditional bricklayers.

On the housing side, we need to basically terminate planning restrictions preventing houses from being built, and build on the green belt if we are to have enough space to build homes.

Failure to address this problem (and tarring anybody daring to point of the obvious as a thought criminal) has already caused sufficient social unrest enough to take us out of the EU. Continuing to ignore the problem and smearing people raising concerns about the ballooning population size is quite obviously going to lead to severe unrest in the future so housing needs to be addressed.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: shame for Ledswinger

>On the housing side, we need to basically terminate planning restrictions preventing houses from being built, and build on the green belt if we are to have enough space to build homes.

And what kind of homes will be built on the Green Belt? - 4-5-6 bed mansions, to be bought by oligarchs, that's what.

Don't believe the whinings of the building lobby about planning restrictions. There's plenty of building land - just no incentive to build enough to reduce the value of the stock.

0
0

Re: shame

"Labour truly do want to take the country to the 1970's so anyone crying brexit was about being backward couldnt possibly vote for the magic money tree nutters."

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

The "magic money tree nutters" are the Tories?

2
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017