Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

2017 General Election Thread

The place for all general topics not related to the Saddlers, plus the ever-popular Prediction League. Keep it fun.
Forum rules
Be nice. Play fair.
El_Nombre
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:15 am
Location: Next to Big Curly

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Tue May 02, 2017 1:06 pm

Super Gabor wrote:To think, if Labour actually won the election, this would be our new Home Secretary.

Unbelievable.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/


As a Labour supporter she makes me embarrassed to support the party.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Tue May 02, 2017 1:11 pm

:o :( :roll:

Still listening .... :(

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 2:39 am

Super Gabor wrote:To think, if Labour actually won the election, this would be our new Home Secretary.

Unbelievable.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

No worse than May dithering on her interview with Marr, when she totally avoided the pension triple lock questions. Funny how that wasn't over-reported by Britain's billionaire-owned media machine. Getting muddled live is nothing new, and recovering to slap down tory shill Humphrey was good ('flippant' - he was). But hey, let's all concentrate on one performance instead of looking at the substance behind it.

The tories have culled tens of thousands of police from the force since they were elected. Since 2012 violent crime has risen 96%. They propose to cull ten thousand more, and that's only the cuts they've told people about, so given their past performance, it's probably worse. The savings aren't needed because of austerity, they're needed to fund tax breaks for rich people, and the general public will pay the price.

On the other hand Labour have turned round and said 'Law and order? We need that in Britain, so how about we fund an extra ten thousand coppers by not proceeding with the proposed capital gains tax cut that gives even more money to the already wealthy?'

Better to mock someone than the policy though?

User avatar
Cheesebag
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: At poo poo's house, apparently ;)

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 7:22 am

Loving the bitterness from the Vietnam/New Zealand champagne socialist alliance :D

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 7:41 am

Cheesebag wrote:Loving the bitterness from the Vietnam/New Zealand champagne socialist alliance :D


:?:

I've been brutally honest about the prospects of the labour challenge. Still doesn't make the self-servatives anything but a collection of greedy bastards with massive incompetence issues.

Is that bitterness, a (gosh) a different perspective to the one the shithouse media ladle out, or the realisation that UK Plc is heading into choppy waters with a total liability in command?

'LOL' etc ....

User avatar
Cheesebag
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: At poo poo's house, apparently ;)

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 7:59 am

I know... I like a bit of #bants.... lets be honest it's probably best for an Election now to put Labour out of it's Corbyn and Abbott misery. Start a fresh and have a decent opposition. It comes to something when I actually think Milliband aye a bad chap :D

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 10:46 am

Cheesebag wrote:I know... I like a bit of #bants.... lets be honest it's probably best for an Election now to put Labour out of it's Corbyn and Abbott misery. Start a fresh and have a decent opposition. It comes to something when I actually think Milliband aye a bad chap :D

Appreciate that, like Cully, you are the archetypal Tory, and probably secretly turned on by the current leaderine, the offspring of Skeletor and Margaret Thatcher's reanimated corpse, but what, really, are her policies? #strongbowstable

User avatar
Super Gabor
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2345
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 11:35 am

Exile wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:To think, if Labour actually won the election, this would be our new Home Secretary.

Unbelievable.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

No worse than May dithering on her interview with Marr, when she totally avoided the pension triple lock questions. Funny how that wasn't over-reported by Britain's billionaire-owned media machine. Getting muddled live is nothing new, and recovering to slap down tory shill Humphrey was good ('flippant' - he was). But hey, let's all concentrate on one performance instead of looking at the substance behind it.

The tories have culled tens of thousands of police from the force since they were elected. Since 2012 violent crime has risen 96%. They propose to cull ten thousand more, and that's only the cuts they've told people about, so given their past performance, it's probably worse. The savings aren't needed because of austerity, they're needed to fund tax breaks for rich people, and the general public will pay the price.

On the other hand Labour have turned round and said 'Law and order? We need that in Britain, so how about we fund an extra ten thousand coppers by not proceeding with the proposed capital gains tax cut that gives even more money to the already wealthy?'

Better to mock someone than the policy though?


I recall you saying pensioners had it quite cushy (or words to that effect) when we had the debate on where the welfare budget goes (thread courtesy of Rev Bannd-Out, 2015 Gen Election). A shift in emphasis towards the younger and more in need. Most political and economic commentators now agree with you and T.May on this :wink:

Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

I think we need to understand the difference between "policy" and "wishlists". Easy for Labour to come out and say "we'll provide 10,000 more coppers" and, on the face it, a popular statement. The fact Ms Abbott had no grip on her brief, made up figures out of thin air under slight pressure and then got them wrong over and over, just adds to the impression this current incarnation of the Labour Party is fudge clueless and it is.

Then to say it will come from Caps Gain Tax savings when your colleagues have already pledged that "money" several times over is mathematical nonsense.

Do you not see why most sane voters may conclude there is a problem with plausibility, let alone competence and capability? For Labour, it is like 1983 again but worse. The nasty party may as well sit in their homes for the next 6 weeks whilst the debacle of Labour shooting itself in the foot continues
Last edited by Super Gabor on Wed May 03, 2017 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JonnyOwen
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Anywhere but here.

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 6:14 pm

Super Gabor wrote:Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

It's commonly argued that the reason why crime rates have lowered alongside police numbers is not because of less officers, but instead it is to do lots of others smaller changes to modern crime. These include the shift of modern crimes becoming more and more online based, less police that can actually record crimes and a possible lack of confidence in the police to deal with an incident due to their lessened numbers leading to less reported crimes. This phenomenon of crime rates falling with police numbers and a reduced budget has been talking about a lot by criminologists for a while, and yet when examined closely the shift in the kind of crime is what changes. So for instance when police numbers are high, the number of property crime decreases and other more discrete crimes are committed. It also directly goes against the numerous studies that show that increases in police officers does have a direct correlation on the number of crimes, an example of this from the top of my head is the 7/7 bombing which led to many more officers being deployed leading to a knock-on effect of a reduction in crime at the time.

The reasons why police retire early, which granted probably has been influenced by unions, is because the role of a police officers is crucial to be done correctly. So having officers who have been working a physically demanding job constantly for 30 years and who could possibly be physically unfit through age and/or wear and tear, might not be able to do certain jobs to a high enough standard. The fact that policing is a job that you don't want to do also speaks volumes as to why the pension is as high as it is. It's hard to get into, the work is both dangerous and tough physically and mentally. There is also constant criticism from the outside from the public and the inside through the IPCC and PSD. The pay is much lower for new officers than what is on offer for your standard desk job and it takes a long time in the job to get into the decent pay brackets. This is why the pension is high and another reason why retirement age is lower than usual, it's to actually attract people to do the job.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 6:15 pm

Cheesebag wrote:I know... I like a bit of #bants.... lets be honest it's probably best for an Election now to put Labour out of it's Corbyn and Abbott misery. Start a fresh and have a decent opposition. It comes to something when I actually think Milliband aye a bad chap :D


Hmmm :wink:

User avatar
Super Gabor
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2345
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 6:51 pm

JonnyOwen wrote:The reasons why police retire early, which granted probably has been influenced by unions, is because the role of a police officers is crucial to be done correctly. So having officers who have been working a physically demanding job constantly for 30 years and who could possibly be physically unfit through age and/or wear and tear, might not be able to do certain jobs to a high enough standard. The fact that policing is a job that you don't want to do also speaks volumes as to why the pension is as high as it is. It's hard to get into, the work is both dangerous and tough physically and mentally. There is also constant criticism from the outside from the public and the inside through the IPCC and PSD. The pay is much lower for new officers than what is on offer for your standard desk job and it takes a long time in the job to get into the decent pay brackets. This is why the pension is high and another reason why retirement age is lower than usual, it's to actually attract people to do the job.

As I stated, it is a career path I wouldn't want to do and I respect those that do. I have to take issue though with the option (if it is that?) of retiring after 30 years. Surely, better to put a police officer to good use in "non frontline" work for the final 15 years (if they worked for the same working life most of us have to) after all the investment that has gone into their training and development. Also because of the experience and "wisdom" they should still be able to bring to a police force.

If we are looking at how to have an effective police service and deploy taxpayers money effectively, it makes more sense if they have a longer active career - the difference between topping up the pension of an ex copper for 15 years to convert it to a salary seems a smarter move than letting them go and recruiting afresh each time.

User avatar
JonnyOwen
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Anywhere but here.

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 7:08 pm

Super Gabor wrote:If we are looking at how to have an effective police service and deploy taxpayers money effectively, it makes more sense if they have a longer active career - the difference between topping up the pension of an ex copper for 15 years to convert it to a salary seems a smarter move than letting them go and recruiting afresh each time.

You also have to consider than older officers will be on much higher wages than a fresh wave of the police. Also keeping officers on for longer could restrict the number of officers coming in the door, which is necessary to keep the wheel turning. Fresh officers become experienced and get promoted, they then move into senior positions and over their career they advance higher until they retire. Hopefully at the same time the next wave after this generation will be one step behind to take up those positions and keep the wheel turning. Keeping older officers on will only further influence the public to not join the police, mean that older or less fit officers are responding to emergencies, could possibly cost more than just paying a pension (as I believe the later that you retire the more you receive), could leave a management gap later down the line and could lead to an ageing police force with a lack of newer recruits. The "smarter" move economically is not the smarter move for ensuring the quality of a vital public service.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Wed May 03, 2017 11:33 pm

Super Gabor wrote:
Exile wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:To think, if Labour actually won the election, this would be our new Home Secretary.

Unbelievable.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

No worse than May dithering on her interview with Marr, when she totally avoided the pension triple lock questions. Funny how that wasn't over-reported by Britain's billionaire-owned media machine. Getting muddled live is nothing new, and recovering to slap down tory shill Humphrey was good ('flippant' - he was). But hey, let's all concentrate on one performance instead of looking at the substance behind it.

The tories have culled tens of thousands of police from the force since they were elected. Since 2012 violent crime has risen 96%. They propose to cull ten thousand more, and that's only the cuts they've told people about, so given their past performance, it's probably worse. The savings aren't needed because of austerity, they're needed to fund tax breaks for rich people, and the general public will pay the price.

On the other hand Labour have turned round and said 'Law and order? We need that in Britain, so how about we fund an extra ten thousand coppers by not proceeding with the proposed capital gains tax cut that gives even more money to the already wealthy?'

Better to mock someone than the policy though?


I recall you saying pensioners had it quite cushy (or words to that effect) when we had the debate on where the welfare budget goes (thread courtesy of Rev Bannd-Out, 2015 Gen Election). A shift in emphasis towards the younger and more in need. Most political and economic commentators now agree with you and T.May on this :wink:

Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

I think we need to understand the difference between "policy" and "wishlists". Easy for Labour to come out and say "we'll provide 10,000 more coppers" and, on the face it, a popular statement. The fact Ms Abbott had no grip on her brief, made up figures out of thin air under slight pressure and then got them wrong over and over, just adds to the impression this current incarnation of the Labour Party is fudge clueless and it is.

Then to say it will come from Caps Gain Tax savings when your colleagues have already pledged that "money" several times over is mathematical nonsense.

Do you not see why most sane voters may conclude there is a problem with plausibility, let alone competence and capability? For Labour, it is like 1983 again but worse. The nasty party may as well sit in their homes for the next 6 weeks whilst the debacle of Labour shooting itself in the foot continues

My point was more that she avoids answering anything, except by saying variations on 'national interest', 'strong and stable', 'important election' and so on. She has no substance, neither does she ooze personality, or anything remotely resembling competence.

Crime rtes fall because the system is being juked - lack of personnel to record a crime, lack of will to follow it up, awareness that not counting it ups your hit rate and KPI, etc. Violent crime is recorded differently, sdo it is safe to say that if that's doubled, anything else is also on the up.

Labour's policies are budgeted, should you care to read their manifesto. The tories, as you say, will sit happily on their hands, knowing damn well that if they actually say what they want to do in public, the electorate would be horrified. Sell the NHS? Trample over human rights? More zero hours contracts? Even less social support? Lumping more debt onto students? No Brexit plan at all? More corporate tax sweetheart deals? The average worker is already on their knees. The transition to a low tax, low wage, no security economy is well underway, aided and abetted by the media turning a blind eye because their owners are complicit, the editors obedient, and the journalists desperate to remain employed. Free press my backside (and don't get me started on Keunssberg!).

Meanwhile, May knocks on doors to empty homes, refuses to go on television for a Leaders Debate, has her own hot dog moment with that ridiculous chips photoshoot, locks journalists in rooms while she tubthumps to local party members instead of meeting the electorate, and generally shows no ability to actually enunciate anything she stands for that could be in the national interest (never answers a straight question about her government), certainly isn't strong and stable (national debt not eliminated as promised, Britain in brexit turmoil, Scotland on the verge of leaving the Union, the Irish question back on the table, her pathetic fawning over Trump and appeasement of the Saudis compared to Merkel's stateswomanly performance - need I go on?), and definitely fails to deliver in showing that she's taking this election seriously (hiding from the press, padding meetings with supporters, looking like a rabbit in the headlights).

This is an election that she promised wouldn't happen (flip, flop!), yet one sniff of the CPS around the tories' election spending skullduggery of last time, that won them that small majority, and she's running scared, along with all her privately-educated, independently wealthy, self-serving, self-aggrandising cabinet troughers. Hardly a government for the people.

Walsallone
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:43 pm

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Thu May 04, 2017 3:25 pm

I have never strayed on to this part of the site before but it is a real gem. We have a bloke in New Zealand purporting to be an expert on UK politics. All I can say is I hope he knows more about football because he knows nothing about this country and its politics!! Why he thinks his views are in any way valid living as far away as he can from this blessed isle is beyond me. Still it is a free world and anyone is allowed to make a fool of himself from time to time :D
Anyway back to the football and my 59 years of supporting the saddlers!!!! :lol:

User avatar
JonnyOwen
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Anywhere but here.

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Thu May 04, 2017 3:43 pm

Walsallone wrote:We have a bloke in New Zealand purporting to be an expert on UK politics. All I can say is I hope he knows more about football because he knows nothing about this country and its politics!! Why he thinks his views are in any way valid living as far away as he can from this blessed isle is beyond me.

Not really sure who you think you are to tell someone whether their opinions and views are "valid" or not. Anyone can have an opinion on anything, it doesn't make them right but they can still express themselves. Plus isn't that the whole purpose of a message board, to post what you think?

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Thu May 04, 2017 4:18 pm

Walsallone wrote:I have never strayed on to this part of the site before but it is a real gem. We have a bloke in New Zealand purporting to be an expert on UK politics. All I can say is I hope he knows more about football because he knows nothing about this country and its politics!! Why he thinks his views are in any way valid living as far away as he can from this blessed isle is beyond me. Still it is a free world and anyone is allowed to make a fool of himself from time to time :D
Anyway back to the football and my 59 years of supporting the saddlers!!!! :lol:


Interesting.
What's your opinion on the US president, North Korea, Russia, the Middle East?
And better yet, any historical incident that presumably you have developed a view on. WW2 perhaps, or the Napoleonic wars.
What's that? No, no. Apparently you are not within a specific vicinity and therefore, by your own logic, are excluded from having a view.
Oops. :oops: :oops: :oops:

I think it's called having the ability to read and make judgements from that. Still, a renowned sage once remarked that it is a free world and anyone is allowed to make a complete and utter berk of himself from time to time.

:D :wink:

ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Thu May 04, 2017 7:59 pm

Exile wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:
Exile wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:To think, if Labour actually won the election, this would be our new Home Secretary.

Unbelievable.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

No worse than May dithering on her interview with Marr, when she totally avoided the pension triple lock questions. Funny how that wasn't over-reported by Britain's billionaire-owned media machine. Getting muddled live is nothing new, and recovering to slap down tory shill Humphrey was good ('flippant' - he was). But hey, let's all concentrate on one performance instead of looking at the substance behind it.

The tories have culled tens of thousands of police from the force since they were elected. Since 2012 violent crime has risen 96%. They propose to cull ten thousand more, and that's only the cuts they've told people about, so given their past performance, it's probably worse. The savings aren't needed because of austerity, they're needed to fund tax breaks for rich people, and the general public will pay the price.

On the other hand Labour have turned round and said 'Law and order? We need that in Britain, so how about we fund an extra ten thousand coppers by not proceeding with the proposed capital gains tax cut that gives even more money to the already wealthy?'

Better to mock someone than the policy though?


I recall you saying pensioners had it quite cushy (or words to that effect) when we had the debate on where the welfare budget goes (thread courtesy of Rev Bannd-Out, 2015 Gen Election). A shift in emphasis towards the younger and more in need. Most political and economic commentators now agree with you and T.May on this :wink:

Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

I think we need to understand the difference between "policy" and "wishlists". Easy for Labour to come out and say "we'll provide 10,000 more coppers" and, on the face it, a popular statement. The fact Ms Abbott had no grip on her brief, made up figures out of thin air under slight pressure and then got them wrong over and over, just adds to the impression this current incarnation of the Labour Party is fudge clueless and it is.

Then to say it will come from Caps Gain Tax savings when your colleagues have already pledged that "money" several times over is mathematical nonsense.

Do you not see why most sane voters may conclude there is a problem with plausibility, let alone competence and capability? For Labour, it is like 1983 again but worse. The nasty party may as well sit in their homes for the next 6 weeks whilst the debacle of Labour shooting itself in the foot continues

My point was more that she avoids answering anything, except by saying variations on 'national interest', 'strong and stable', 'important election' and so on. She has no substance, neither does she ooze personality, or anything remotely resembling competence.

Crime rtes fall because the system is being juked - lack of personnel to record a crime, lack of will to follow it up, awareness that not counting it ups your hit rate and KPI, etc. Violent crime is recorded differently, sdo it is safe to say that if that's doubled, anything else is also on the up.

Labour's policies are budgeted, should you care to read their manifesto. The tories, as you say, will sit happily on their hands, knowing damn well that if they actually say what they want to do in public, the electorate would be horrified. Sell the NHS? Trample over human rights? More zero hours contracts? Even less social support? Lumping more debt onto students? No Brexit plan at all? More corporate tax sweetheart deals? The average worker is already on their knees. The transition to a low tax, low wage, no security economy is well underway, aided and abetted by the media turning a blind eye because their owners are complicit, the editors obedient, and the journalists desperate to remain employed. Free press my backside (and don't get me started on Keunssberg!).

Meanwhile, May knocks on doors to empty homes, refuses to go on television for a Leaders Debate, has her own hot dog moment with that ridiculous chips photoshoot, locks journalists in rooms while she tubthumps to local party members instead of meeting the electorate, and generally shows no ability to actually enunciate anything she stands for that could be in the national interest (never answers a straight question about her government), certainly isn't strong and stable (national debt not eliminated as promised, Britain in brexit turmoil, Scotland on the verge of leaving the Union, the Irish question back on the table, her pathetic fawning over Trump and appeasement of the Saudis compared to Merkel's stateswomanly performance - need I go on?), and definitely fails to deliver in showing that she's taking this election seriously (hiding from the press, padding meetings with supporters, looking like a rabbit in the headlights).

This is an election that she promised wouldn't happen (flip, flop!), yet one sniff of the CPS around the tories' election spending skullduggery of last time, that won them that small majority, and she's running scared, along with all her privately-educated, independently wealthy, self-serving, self-aggrandising cabinet troughers. Hardly a government for the people.


Have they published their manifesto yet?

User avatar
saddlerken
Site Addict
 
Posts: 3267
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: The Mill

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 4:20 am

ShyTallKnight wrote:
Have they published their manifesto yet?


Good question!!

Exy, you must be a member or something, what does the Labour Party 2017 Manifesto look like?

VERY exciting stuff.

Wragbyred
Glitterati
 
Posts: 1060
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:42 pm

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 9:07 am

JonnyOwen wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

It's commonly argued that the reason why crime rates have lowered alongside police numbers is not because of less officers, but instead it is to do lots of others smaller changes to modern crime. These include the shift of modern crimes becoming more and more online based, less police that can actually record crimes and a possible lack of confidence in the police to deal with an incident due to their lessened numbers leading to less reported crimes. This phenomenon of crime rates falling with police numbers and a reduced budget has been talking about a lot by criminologists for a while, and yet when examined closely the shift in the kind of crime is what changes. So for instance when police numbers are high, the number of property crime decreases and other more discrete crimes are committed. It also directly goes against the numerous studies that show that increases in police officers does have a direct correlation on the number of crimes, an example of this from the top of my head is the 7/7 bombing which led to many more officers being deployed leading to a knock-on effect of a reduction in crime at the time.

The reasons why police retire early, which granted probably has been influenced by unions, is because the role of a police officers is crucial to be done correctly. So having officers who have been working a physically demanding job constantly for 30 years and who could possibly be physically unfit through age and/or wear and tear, might not be able to do certain jobs to a high enough standard. The fact that policing is a job that you don't want to do also speaks volumes as to why the pension is as high as it is. It's hard to get into, the work is both dangerous and tough physically and mentally. There is also constant criticism from the outside from the public and the inside through the IPCC and PSD. The pay is much lower for new officers than what is on offer for your standard desk job and it takes a long time in the job to get into the decent pay brackets. This is why the pension is high and another reason why retirement age is lower than usual, it's to actually attract people to do the job.


Jonny, you have the insight and thoughtfulness well in advance of your tender years, ever thought of a career in politics?

Keep it up lad!!

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 11:05 am

saddlerken wrote:
ShyTallKnight wrote:
Have they published their manifesto yet?


Good question!!

Exy, you must be a member or something, what does the Labour Party 2017 Manifesto look like?

VERY exciting stuff.

It's shiny gold, and made of hologram material. Those who look upon it weep once they comprehend its absolute sincerity and truth.

User avatar
Cheesebag
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: At poo poo's house, apparently ;)

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 12:50 pm

Exile wrote:
saddlerken wrote:
ShyTallKnight wrote:
Have they published their manifesto yet?


Good question!!

Exy, you must be a member or something, what does the Labour Party 2017 Manifesto look like?

VERY exciting stuff.

It's shiny gold, and made of hologram material. Those who look upon it weep once they comprehend its absolute sincerity and truth.



does it contain traces of explosives?

User avatar
JonnyOwen
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Anywhere but here.

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 1:58 pm

Wragbyred wrote:
JonnyOwen wrote:
Super Gabor wrote:Culled by 13% or 19,000 yes. Strangely most crime rates have fallen since 2010. Not sure where your +96% figure comes from but you may want to look at a wider data set? If it is a question of police resources, perhaps we should question a sector that allows its staff to retire after 30 years and pick up a decent pension for the rest of their lives. Policing is not a job I would want to do, but when everyone else has to work 45 to 50 years before retirement, why do we allow this to continue? Power of the trade unions perhaps? :wink:

It's commonly argued that the reason why crime rates have lowered alongside police numbers is not because of less officers, but instead it is to do lots of others smaller changes to modern crime. These include the shift of modern crimes becoming more and more online based, less police that can actually record crimes and a possible lack of confidence in the police to deal with an incident due to their lessened numbers leading to less reported crimes. This phenomenon of crime rates falling with police numbers and a reduced budget has been talking about a lot by criminologists for a while, and yet when examined closely the shift in the kind of crime is what changes. So for instance when police numbers are high, the number of property crime decreases and other more discrete crimes are committed. It also directly goes against the numerous studies that show that increases in police officers does have a direct correlation on the number of crimes, an example of this from the top of my head is the 7/7 bombing which led to many more officers being deployed leading to a knock-on effect of a reduction in crime at the time.

The reasons why police retire early, which granted probably has been influenced by unions, is because the role of a police officers is crucial to be done correctly. So having officers who have been working a physically demanding job constantly for 30 years and who could possibly be physically unfit through age and/or wear and tear, might not be able to do certain jobs to a high enough standard. The fact that policing is a job that you don't want to do also speaks volumes as to why the pension is as high as it is. It's hard to get into, the work is both dangerous and tough physically and mentally. There is also constant criticism from the outside from the public and the inside through the IPCC and PSD. The pay is much lower for new officers than what is on offer for your standard desk job and it takes a long time in the job to get into the decent pay brackets. This is why the pension is high and another reason why retirement age is lower than usual, it's to actually attract people to do the job.


Jonny, you have the insight and thoughtfulness well in advance of your tender years, ever thought of a career in politics?

Keep it up lad!!

Thank you very much :D :oops:

Not really interested in politics though, I just so happen to be a couple months away from getting my policing degree so this topic is within my forte. I'm not THAT smart, honest!

ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 3:26 pm

Not really interested in politics though, I just so happen to be a couple months away from getting my policing degree so this topic is within my forte. I'm not THAT smart, honest![/quote]

Are you sure you haven't 'gone native' or did you filch it from some handout :mrgreen:

BarnsleySaddler
Glitterati
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Still living in the dark back in Barnsley

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Fri May 05, 2017 3:36 pm

The Conservative, Labour and Lib. Dems manifestos for the June 2017 general election are all due to all be published w/c 16th May. We will then know what they propose and the costings.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sat May 06, 2017 12:34 am

BarnsleySaddler wrote:The Conservative, Labour and Lib. Dems manifestos for the June 2017 general election are all due to all be published w/c 16th May. We will then know what they propose and the costings.

Tories: pain
Labour: free everything
Lib dem: some sort of sanity, but will throw it all out to cosy up to the winner if necessary

swampysaddler
Glitterati
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:19 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sat May 06, 2017 12:43 am

Exile wrote:
BarnsleySaddler wrote:The Conservative, Labour and Lib. Dems manifestos for the June 2017 general election are all due to all be published w/c 16th May. We will then know what they propose and the costings.

Tories: pain
Labour: free everything
Lib dem: some sort of sanity, but will throw it all out to cosy up to the winner if necessary



Say's he living in New Zealand.
Labour have been bum raped today, same as Lib Dems, who don't like anything democratic because it disagree's with Dim but nice Tim.
UKIP are finished. They served their purpose.
Get us out the EU.

User avatar
Cowshed
UTS Veteran
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:25 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sat May 06, 2017 1:30 pm

Really disappointed we didn't get Corbyn visiting these parts yesterday you would've thought he would be in the 2nd city given its a labour heartland and labour certainly needed their leader for support in what was a very difficult time. Walsall gone blue for gods sake. Turns out he went to Liverpool - that was brave given the likely outcome there. No different to may who is scared to do a debate. These politicians eh

diane Abbott has been hilarious and nuttall makes you physically uncomfortable when he speaks

Never thought I'd say this but the greens seem sane and normal

User avatar
Cheesebag
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4801
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: At poo poo's house, apparently ;)

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sat May 06, 2017 2:50 pm

It's all going blue.... the Corbyn effect :D

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sun May 07, 2017 3:36 am

Ar. It cor-abin wurs.

User avatar
PT
Site Addict
 
Posts: 3733
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Liverpool and skaville

Re: 2017 General Election Thread

Sun May 07, 2017 9:05 am

It's all a bit boring.

Tories are 3-0 up and effectively parking the bus. No silly mistakes, keep the Mavericks (especially Boris) on the bench and don't even let them warm up for fear of disturbing something. Not even playing with an attacker. Two banks of five. Keep the ball. Run the clock down.

Labour at 3-0 down are hoofing some very speculative long balls (more holidays, more police, more tax on the rich) hoping that something falls their way, but in reality more worried about conceding a daft own goal and being embarrassed than really trying to claw back a goal or two.

There's a lovely young lad called Tim who keeps asking politely if he could play and there's a big bully called Paul who keeps trying to invade the pitch but is too daft to get over the wall.

Then there's Nicola who is convinced she owns part of the pitch so will play, but only on the bit she thinks is hers and so only has one goal.

PreviousNext
Return to General Chat & Prediction League

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests