Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

sun_tzu said:
What's the saying
Dress for the job you want... Not the job you have.
If he wants to be pm then he needs to convince people he can be statesman like and represent the country
He currently looks like a geography teacher incapable of picking a jacket that fits him
So yeah it may be a little thing but if you cant be bothered to do your tie up and can't even pick a suit / jacket that fits your going to have a problem convincing a lot of people that your actually up to the job of running the country
Click to expand...
I bet Cameron was looking dapper in a bespoke Saville Row suit when he ordered intervention in Libya.
 
I can't help wondering what his mum said about sticking his cock in a pig, I don't think it matters how you dress when you do that.

Also the proper suit jibe is getting very close to going to a proper school type of comment. I'd be very careful about seeming to put down people who were not born into vast wealth and privilege because that is most voters and the biggest hit against him and his party. People will remember these type of comments long after the froth of PMQ's.
 
Corbyn should have responded i am closer to beign a common man, than you are in your expensive branded suit.
 
Untied said:
McDonnell is at least willing to get stuck in. Wish Corbyn showed some of that fight.
FAEJFDr.png
Click to expand...
This is such a simple message to convey - how have the Labour Party failed so spectacularly to get this message across in the last six years?
 
FromTheBench said:
Corbyn should have responded i am closer to beign a common man, than you are in your expensive branded suit.
Click to expand...
He's not really 'the voice of the common man' though, is he? How many people do you know similar to Jeremy Corbyn who aren't old hippies/ socialists from the 70s and 80s?
 
Smores said:
No one gives a feck what he wears. When have you ever heard "Cameron's a ham-fisted dick head but at least he looks good in that suit."
Click to expand...
Never, but I'm sure that there is a daily mail article about Sturgeon wearing her hair up nicely somewhere
 
Jippy said:
Ouch.

Black MP Dawn Butler 'mistaken for cleaner' in Westminster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35685169
Click to expand...
Dawn Butler told BBC 5 Radio Live she was in a members-only lift when an unnamed Commons member told her: "This lift really isn't for cleaners."

[...]

Writing for the Fawcett Society in 2008, she said she was once confronted by a former minister who queried whether she was allowed in the members area on the terrace.

She wrote that when she told him she was an MP, he replied: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."
Click to expand...

These MPs should be named and shamed for the cnuts that they are.
 
I agree, if she indeed has written evidence of wrongdoing then why be coy about the identity of the individual involved? The culture of 2008 or today is not about to shield that person from censure.

Otherwise, the impression she is creating is one of open and unchecked racism among her colleagues in the Commons. Is that a fair thing to do in itself?
 
Last edited:
fecking Tory fecking fecks are fecking my fecking generation up more than they have done al-fecking-ready. feck them and feck anyone who fecking says that this isn't their problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35702441

A review of the state pension age could mean people joining the workforce today will have to wait until their mid-70s before they retire, experts have warned.

Former CBI boss John Cridland has been appointed to lead the review, the first of regular five-year assessments.

Those under the age of about 55 will be affected by the shake-up, which will consider what the state retirement age should be from April 2028.

The results will be published next May.

The government said the review, required under existing legislation, would consider changes in life expectancy as well as wider changes in society and "make sure that the state pension is sustainable and affordable for future generations."

It said it would also consider whether "the current system of a universal state pension age" rising in line with life expectancy was "optimal in the long run".

This suggests the review will look at whether the retirement age should rise even if life expectancy slows.
Click to expand...

And, no fecking surprise, the fecking BB fecking C have already started burying the news even though it's on the front fecking page of half of the national fecking newspapers. feck.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
fecking Tory fecking fecks are fecking my fecking generation up more than they have done al-fecking-ready. feck them and feck anyone who fecking says that this isn't their problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35702441
Click to expand...
ok so ni contributions are supposed to pay for pensions and health care
Ni contrubutions account for about 20% of tax take
currently pensions and health accounts for 38% of our spending... and that's set to rise massively if we don't cut pensions or delay pensions

ukgs_chart_pie1.png

So about 38% of total spending is health and pensions...
NI contributions account for circa 20% of government income
2014-15 were the last years I could see where NIC was £110,406 Million out of £515,348 Million
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/493308/Dec15_Receipts_NS_Bulletin_Final.pdf
Click to expand...

So tory, labour, green, UKIP whoever it is either faces massive tax rises (which nobody will vote for) or cuts to provisions

The tripple lock on pensions in retrospect will seem daft I think (though a vote winner)

And until all parties actually talk about the reality and accept that we cant have people working for 40 years (20 to 60) and putting away a few % of their income then retired for 30-40 years and expect the government to be able to fund cutting edge medical care and a good standard of living we are all fuc!ed no matter what party is in power

It was initially 12 people working for 1 retired yet we are facing a reality soon where it will be 2 people working for each 1 retired (and still people want to cut immigration)

The fact that NI has for many years only covered half of what it is supposed to is a real problem continually not addressed under either government.

So yeah your probably going to live longer, a larger proportion of that life will be working, you will need to save more of your money than before to fund your retirement and more of that retirement will probably be in poor health - and thats the price we all paty for increased life expectancy

Though a plaitable solution would be great I cant see one - if you can envisage a way to make it work (beyond a logans run type future) then enlighten us...

edit... my only vaguely sensible suggestion would be paying a proportion of pension on a sliding scale say start at 65 paying 10% and increasing each year by 10% till 75 and people would need to make sufficent private provision / work part time in those years - that said I dont see the whole economy overnight restructuring to provide the right amount and sort of part time opportunities (i suppose you could legistlate for phased retirements though based on 1 day in each 10 by law from aged 65 but its messy and difficult to impose without say a 20 year lead time to allow people to prepare)... in short we are all fecked
and wait till they find an (expensive) cure for cancers - one of my first jobs was working out just how fuc!ed insurers would be if / when thats found (and its even worse for the government as they have to fund the medical bill as well) - in short society is going to collapse and lots more doom / type gloom scenarios - ok its not quite that bad but seriously it is very bad.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the tories alone aren't to blame for this one. It's up there with climate change with it being well known but universally ignored.

I would say before they just start increasing the age it would be nice to see a considered plan for the future of the aging nation. A plan that goes beyond people needing to save more in private pensions.

A sugar tax is just one example of a positive intervention then will raise funds in a fair way and encourage healthy living. Taking profit out of health care would be another helpful step in the right direction but again it's never going to happen.

Maybe the robots will just look after us all for free whilst we watch/participate in Countdown VR....mmm virtual Rachel riley :drool:
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
Yeah the tories alone aren't to blame for this one. It's up there with climate change with it being well known but universally ignored.

I would say before they just start increasing the age it would be nice to see a considered plan for the future of the aging nature. A plan that goes beyond people needing to save more in private pensions.

A sugar tax is just one example of a positive intervention then will raise funds in a fair way and encourage healthy living. Taking profit out of health care would be another helpful step in the right direction but again it's never going to happen.

Maybe the robots will just look after us all for free whilst we watch participate in Countdown VR....mmm virtual Rachel riley :drool:
Click to expand...
Maximum life allowance is the answer. Could also help to reduce the Tory vote.
 
Adblocking is a 'modern-day protection racket', says culture secretary

Adblocking companies acting as a “modern-day protection racket” have been slammed by culture secretary John Whittingdale, who offered government support to those such as newspaper websites hit by the technology.

In a speech at the Oxford Media Convention, the culture secretary said the fast-growing use of software that blocked advertising presented an existential threat to the newspaper and music industries.

He vowed to set up a round table involving major publishers, social media groups and adblocking companies in the coming weeks to do something about the problem.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/02/adblocking-protection-racket-john-whittingdale
 
I thought the meat and bones of what he was saying was actually quite sensible, but it was sort of couched in weirdly chest thumpy words that didn't make sense.

"This practice is depriving many websites and platforms of legitimate revenue," he said. "It is having an impact across the value chain, and it presents a challenge that has to be overcome. Because, quite simply, if people don't pay in some way for content, then that content will eventually no longer exist.

"And that's as true for the latest piece of journalism as it is for the new album from Muse."

He pointed to research that showed while people do not dislike online advertising in general, they do not like advertising that "interrupts what they are doing", such as auto-play adverts and pop-ups.

"If we can avoid the intrusive ads that consumers dislike, then I believe there should be a decrease in the use of ad-blockers," said the culture secretary.

Mr Whittingdale said he would be meeting "representatives from all sides of the argument" in the coming weeks to discuss the issue, adding that he did not think ad-blockers should be banned.
Click to expand...

I don't think many people can disagree with that can they? I think people accept ads in lieu of paying for a service, but use ad-blockers because of how intrusive some ads are.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I thought the meat and bones of what he was saying was actually quite sensible, but it was sort of couched in weirdly chest thumpy words that didn't make sense.

I don't think many people can disagree with that can they? I think people accept ads in lieu of paying for a service, but use ad-blockers because of how intrusive some ads are.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really need MPs to get involved thought. Plenty of newspaper websites have taken to withholding content if you have an ad-blocker enabled. You can then make a choice as to whether you want to disable the ad-blocker for that page or not. There are some newspapers that make it near impossible to read the articles because of ads popping over the text, or expanding and contracting, so moving the column of text up and down. I'd happily make the choice not to read their articles if they blocked people using ad-blockers.
 
whats next - stopping people from fast forwarding adverts on catch up tv? (the broadcasters probably will try and do that actually)

then what... forcing people to watch the adverts rather than make a cuppa and have a piss at half time?
 
It may be a protection racket to the Guardian.But to the average user it stops annoying popups and installation of unwanted tool bar software. Always think politicians and technology don't mix.
 
lynchie said:
It doesn't really need MPs to get involved thought. Plenty of newspaper websites have taken to withholding content if you have an ad-blocker enabled. You can then make a choice as to whether you want to disable the ad-blocker for that page or not. There are some newspapers that make it near impossible to read the articles because of ads popping over the text, or expanding and contracting, so moving the column of text up and down. I'd happily make the choice not to read their articles if they blocked people using ad-blockers.
Click to expand...

Right, and he addresses that point:
He pointed to research that showed while people do not dislike online advertising in general, they do not like advertising that "interrupts what they are doing", such as auto-play adverts and pop-ups.

"If we can avoid the intrusive ads that consumers dislike, then I believe there should be a decrease in the use of ad-blockers," said the culture secretary.
Click to expand...


If you use uBlock, by the way, theres third party filters that disable those adblocker detection notices. Quite handy.
 
SteveJ said:
Adblocking is a 'modern-day protection racket', says culture secretary



http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/02/adblocking-protection-racket-john-whittingdale
Click to expand...
I completely understand the points he makes but does he understand the points internet users are concerned about. Perhaps he should consider addressing the problems of ads on websites and find users new ways of protecting themselves from malware and very intrusive ads.

Wondering now whether the government offices use adblockers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising

https://malwaretips.com/blogs/attention-your-pcs-performance-might-be-at-risk-removal/

http://www.getcybersafe.gc.ca/cnt/rsks/cmmn-thrts-eng.aspx
Click to expand...
 
sun_tzu said:
whats next - stopping people from fast forwarding adverts on catch up tv? (the broadcasters probably will try and do that actually)

then what... forcing people to watch the adverts rather than make a cuppa and have a piss at half time?
Click to expand...

I've got a solution that should satisfy everyone; all toilets will have ad boards installed on them.
 
If an ad is embedded neatly into the design of a web page i am happy to live with that, particularly for free sites which rely upon such revenue. Pop-ups are another matter,
 
The Government's new proposals on Sunday trading could be defeated later today though, after Tory rebels and the SNP agreed to join forces in opposition to the bill.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
The Government's new proposals on Sunday trading could be defeated later today though, after Tory rebels and the SNP agreed to join forces in opposition to the bill.
Click to expand...
isnt there a conservative amendment (something about cities over a certain size) that would bring most of the conservative votes back onside? - if so I expect that will still pass?
 
sun_tzu said:
isnt there a conservative amendment (something about cities over a certain size) that would bring most of the conservative votes back onside? - if so I expect that will still pass?
Click to expand...

There are two amendments pending i believe; the one garnering SNP support already has 25 government rebels pledged in opposition, meaning that it requires another 9-10 to block the original bill.
 
Torn on that one. It'd be lovely for me to be able to shop at usual hours on Sundays. It'd be grim for friends who work at supermarkets and would undoubtedly be pressured to work more hours.

Inclined towards the 'don't mess with it - it's fine' argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.