Off-topic/chat thread

afatbollix

Went to see the book of Moorman on Friday. I booked it ages ago and forgot about it. But remembered I had tickets after all them ads in the evening standard! So got in on the first public night and a box to boot.

All I can say is its very funny it takes the piss out of everything and I really mean every thing! It is a must see.
You have a while to book it tho as its going to be around until at least December.

FTA69

silvervixen84 wrote: »

Met him at a function before, he still had his bicycle helmet on! Seems quite jolly and nice alright

He's a horrible Tory bastard in the guise of a jolly man with a silly haircut. He also called the St Patrick's day celebrations last year "a load of Sinn Féin lefty crap." Complete arse.

afatbollix

FTA69 wrote: »

He's a horrible Tory bastard in the guise of a jolly man with a silly haircut. He also called the St Patrick's day celebrations last year "a load of Sinn Féin lefty crap." Complete arse.

That quote that you have of Borris was him talking about a Sinn Fein ball that they have every year. At the time the London mayors office was paying for the ball. Which was a complete waste of money if you look at it from the mayors of Londons office point of view.


The money went to putting on the St Patricks concert at Trafalgar square. Which is what it should be spent on instead of a stupid ball that ordinary people would never get an invite.

enda1

FTA69 wrote: »

He's a horrible Tory bastard in the guise of a jolly man with a silly haircut. He also called the St Patrick's day celebrations last year "a load of Sinn Féin lefty crap." Complete arse.

I think he's great.

Playboy

I dont mind Boris. He isnt perfect but I prefer him to Ken. Think its unfair to call him a horrible tory bastard! Give me a choice between the Tories and Labour at the moment and it will be Tory all day long. I like living in a country that isnt bankrupt... Give Labour power again and we will be.

S.M.B.

afatbollix wrote: »

Went to see the book of Moorman on Friday. I booked it ages ago and forgot about it. But remembered I had tickets after all them ads in the evening standard! So got in on the first public night and a box to boot.

All I can say is its very funny it takes the piss out of everything and I really mean every thing! It is a must see.
You have a while to book it tho as its going to be around until at least December.

I saw it a few weeks ago during its first week of previews. Was massively impressed by it even with very high expectations going in.

Anybody who was ever a fan of South Park and who has any sort of fondness for musicals should go see it.

FTA69

That quote that you have of Borris was him talking about a Sinn Fein ball that they have every year.

That's not the case. It was a gala dinner for Irish community leaders et al and often had the likes of Dermot O'Leary and Bob Geldof etc in attendence. It was in no way or form anything to do with Sinn Féin. Johnson was just being a typical Eton twat and dismissing the event as some sort of Provo celebration, which it wasn't.

Working people in London and Britain in general are facing constant attack on nearly every front. Only a few months back the Tories hired a fella called Adrian Beescroft to draft a report of "job creation", highlights including slashing the minimum wage and rolling back any protections workers have over their job security i.e. the right not to be fired unfairly. Adrian Beescroft made his millions from pay-day loan companies who in turn operate solely on the misery and vulnerability on the low-paid. The Tories have already hamstrung the employment tribunal process by charging workers exorbitant fees to avail of a complaint. In my job I deal with people every day who are constantly and continually having their pay and conditions eroded and as such are in real hardship.

Johnson to me embodies everything that's wrong with the Tories and the fact he is a bit of a "gas man" doesn't change that for me. I'll say no more as this forum isn't really supposed to be about politics as such.

Fysh

I think, given the choice between Boris and Ken, Boris is the lesser evil. But I still wouldn't trust him as far as I could crap him, because there's no way he's as daft as he makes himself out to be, and I assume that nobody who gets to the position Boris is in does so through being entirely decent and straightforward.

I don't much like the Tories in general, because while some aspects of their goals for the country make sense (trying to reign in spending) others are daft (Hey, we're broke, so let's waive Vodafone's enormous tax bill! Hey, let's not bother even trying to enact legislation to eliminate tax loopholes for companies! Hey, let's try and force NHS privatisation through the back door, because it's obvious that introducing a requirement to turn a profit as well as providing the service will magically reduce costs somehow!). I don't think Labour are a credible alternative, though, and I wish that the big parties could actually get their collectively-thick skulls around the idea that sometimes, acknowledging that The Other Side Has Had A Good Idea and, you know, using that idea is better for everyone than Acting Like The Entire Country Is One Big Playground for a game of My Friends Are Better Than Yours.

Reekwind

Personally I find Boris to be a nasty piece of work (topical reference, ahoy). Look behind the cuddly personality and there's not much there, substance-wise. His easily ruffled hair is little different to Bertie's 'everyman' patter

Playboy wrote: »

I dont mind Boris. He isnt perfect but I prefer him to Ken. Think its unfair to call him a horrible tory bastard! Give me a choice between the Tories and Labour at the moment and it will be Tory all day long. I like living in a country that isnt bankrupt... Give Labour power again and we will be.

Hmmm? The UK national debt didn't rocket until the financial crisis hit and the Labour government decided to bail out the banks. Is there anyone in the world who believes that the Tories would have let the banks fail had they been in power? Anyone who believes that the Tories would have been more stringent in regulating the banking sector?

I do find this narrative that puts the blame for the crash of Labour overspending to be quite strange, particularly since it's proven to be a popular and enduring myth. In this version of events Gordon Brown almost bankrupted the country on welfare benefits with the financial crisis being nothing more than background noise... until it comes to justifying why Osborne's policies have failed so badly

Fysh wrote:

I don't think Labour are a credible alternative, though, and I wish that the big parties could actually get their collectively-thick skulls around the idea that sometimes, acknowledging that The Other Side Has Had A Good Idea and, you know, using that idea is better for everyone than Acting Like The Entire Country Is One Big Playground for a game of My Friends Are Better Than Yours.

I'd suggest that the problem is quite the opposite - an absence of differentiating ideas. Look at the current discourse on immigration, for example, and you'll see all parties racing for the same rhetoric and policies of 'getting tough'. Why? Because they all take their lead from opinion polls rather than actual political ideals or, heaven forbid, ideology

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I think, given the choice between Boris and Ken, Boris is the lesser evil. But I still wouldn't trust him as far as I could crap him, because there's no way he's as daft as he makes himself out to be, and I assume that nobody who gets to the position Boris is in does so through being entirely decent and straightforward.

I don't much like the Tories in general, because while some aspects of their goals for the country make sense (trying to reign in spending) others are daft (Hey, we're broke, so let's waive Vodafone's enormous tax bill! Hey, let's not bother even trying to enact legislation to eliminate tax loopholes for companies! Hey, let's try and force NHS privatisation through the back door, because it's obvious that introducing a requirement to turn a profit as well as providing the service will magically reduce costs somehow!). I don't think Labour are a credible alternative, though, and I wish that the big parties could actually get their collectively-thick skulls around the idea that sometimes, acknowledging that The Other Side Has Had A Good Idea and, you know, using that idea is better for everyone than Acting Like The Entire Country Is One Big Playground for a game of My Friends Are Better Than Yours.

I agree. Politics unfortunately (even in Ireland) is usually a choice of the lesser of two evils. The politics where the opposition have to oppose every plan of the government just to be obstructive is very frustrating.

Labour (Ed Balls and Milliband in particular) are living in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to the countries economy. They would massively gamble the country's future in order to play to their voters. I have sympathy for people on welfare and people working in the public sector but there needs to be some realism also. We are operating in a global economy and competing against countries like China, India and Brazil. We will be left behind and overall living standards will plummet if we dont remain attractive for corporations, provide a flexible work force, develop specialisms that give us an edge, develop our infrastructure and curb public spending. I'm not a Tory by any means but I think they Tories are more in touch with reality and the future world. Labour seem to have their head in the sand and only focus on the now rather than the consequences of not making the necessary changes to how we administer the country.

Playboy

Reekwind wrote: »

Hmmm? The UK national debt didn't rocket until the financial crisis hit and the Labour government decided to bail out the banks. Is there anyone in the world who believes that the Tories would have let the banks fail had they been in power? Anyone who believes that the Tories would have been more stringent in regulating the banking sector?

I do find this narrative that puts the blame for the crash of Labour overspending to be quite strange, particularly since it's proven to be a popular and enduring myth. In this version of events Gordon Brown almost bankrupted the country on welfare benefits with the financial crisis being nothing more than background noise... until it comes to justifying why Osborne's policies have failed so badly

My point isnt in relation to what caused the problem, it's about who would be better at solving it.

Fysh

I don't think the Tories are particularly well in contact with reality either, sadly Both Labour and the Tories seem to think that it's a great idea to appoint people to Cabinet posts with little or no experience of the areas for which they will be responsible, and both have been known to push daft ideas.

Let's not forget, the current setup whereby getting employed without a third-level qualification is exceptionally difficult is in part the result of the '92 changes whereby polytechnics dealing in workplace-oriented qualifications were rebranded as universities, which happened with the Tories in power. They also constantly push for privatisation of infrastructure without any proper constraints to ensure quality of service or (even worse) the retention of money in the national economy. Now that mass-scale manufacturing or production work is effectively impossible in the UK, we've got the Knowledge Economy being bandied around - which would be a great idea if the education sector were not so predicated on bringing in high-fee-paying foreign students (and therefore creating a growing pool of UK graduates who have been trained within the UK educational system but who are resident in poorer, therefore cheaper countries).

I wish Labour (or anyone else) could provide a genuine alternative to the Tories right now, but they've been rudderless since Blair left. I might not have had much time for the grinning goit, but he at least had a clear vision for what he thought the party should be doing. Right now Milliband is leaning towards the left (at least, more so than Blair's centre-right NuLabour did) but he doesn't seem to have any concrete ideas on how to progress, and thus all he seems to do is complain that Cameron & co are making a balls of things.

Playboy wrote: »

My point isnt in relation to what caused the problem, it's about who would be better at solving it.

I'm with you up until the point where you're suggesting that the party who waived a multinational corporation's £6bn tax bill is better at solving the problem of the country's finances than anyone else...

enda1

Fysh wrote: »

snip

I wish Labour (or anyone else) could provide a genuine alternative to the Tories right now, but they've been rudderless since Blair left.
snip

That's very true.
The best thing that ever happened to the Conservative party was Ed Miliband

Reekwind

Playboy wrote: »

We are operating in a global economy and competing against countries like China, India and Brazil. We will be left behind and overall living standards will plummet if we dont remain attractive for corporations, provide a flexible work force, develop specialisms that give us an edge, develop our infrastructure and curb public spending

I'm sorry but this is awfully contradictory. We're going to maintain living standards by slashing living standards in order to compete with China and India? We're going to develop infrastructure while curbing public spending? What next, we'll help the poor by giving the rich tax breaks? Tackle unemployment in a recession by targeting those on benefits?

My point isnt in relation to what caused the problem, it's about who would be better at solving it.

And, as the UK prepares to stagger into an unprecedented triple-dip recession, what is it about Osborne's performance to date that convinces you that the Tories are more capable custodians of the economy? Genuine question

I think you've picked the one area of real difference between the two parties and the one area where Labour are unquestionably in the right: Tory austerity is not working

Fysh wrote:

I wish Labour (or anyone else) could provide a genuine alternative to the Tories right now, but they've been rudderless since Blair left. I might not have had much time for the grinning goit, but he at least had a clear vision for what he thought the party should be doing

Unfortunately he thought they should be 'doing' whatever would get headlines. The problem is not that Labour has had no big ideas since Blair left but that his time in power completely hollowed out the party and left it ideologically bankrupt

I don't think Miliband is any different and he's certainly not a theorist capable of injecting new intellectual life into the jaded power machine that is New Labour. Surprisingly, to myself at least, where he has been pretty successful is in just holding the party together. Labour might not stand for anything these days but it has been significantly more united than the Tories in recent months

...which would be a great idea if the education sector were not so predicated on bringing in high-fee-paying foreign students (and therefore creating a growing pool of UK graduates who have been trained within the UK educational system but who are resident in poorer, therefore cheaper countries)

...or if Westminster didn't play to the galleries by restricting the ability of foreign students to settle (or even study) in the UK simply because they're a soft target when it comes to lowering immigration numbers

frag420

Christ look what I started...........

Il keep my mouth shut in future if I meet another famous person...:D

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I'm with you up until the point where you're suggesting that the party who waived a multinational corporation's £6bn tax bill is better at solving the problem of the country's finances than anyone else...

And Labour would have made them pay? HMRC's relationship with large corporations in regard to their tax bills had been suspect for quite some time. I dont know the ins and outs of this particular issue but I dont think it was an issue of government policy.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

And Labour would have made them pay? HMRC's relationship with large corporations in regard to their tax bills had been suspect for quite some time. I dont know the ins and outs of this particular issue but I dont think it was an issue of government policy.

I've got no idea, but I think it's important to note that the party in power agreed to waive at least £1bn in tax revenue while constantly using rhetoric saying that we've all got to tighten our belts and pay our dues.

I've got no idea of Labour would have let them off or not, I don't exactly hold them to high standards, but if nothing else they wouldn't have been the shower of bastards telling us how they were going to have to slash a load of services because there's no money to provide them, then deciding they couldn't be arsed collecting an extra £1bn or so in tax revenue from a massively profitable multinational corporation.

ballsymchugh

frag420 wrote: »

Christ look what I started...........

Il keep my mouth shut in future if I meet another famous person...:D

i was wondering should i apologise for mentioning the swan in the other thread, but at least that has snowballed positively, but this? feck sake frag!!

Playboy

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is awfully contradictory. We're going to maintain living standards by slashing living standards in order to compete with China and India? We're going to develop infrastructure while curbing public spending? What next, we'll help the poor by giving the rich tax breaks? Tackle unemployment in a recession by targeting those on benefits?

It's not contradictory at all. The UK like any other nation has finite resources that it has to manage efficiently and for the benefit of the population. Obviously the tories and labour have different ideologies as to how those resources should be managed but fundamentally they both (as a primary concern) need to safeguard the integrity of the economy by preventing the country from going bankrupt.

The UK economy needs to reprioritise what it spends it's money on or else we will go bankrupt, become uncompetitive and swap our standard of living with the India and China's of the world. Currently a huge chunk of our spending is on a bloated public sector and welfare. The government is trying to encourage people on welfare back into the workforce and create an environment where the private sector will grow and provide jobs for people moving from the shrinking public sector. Once we have leaned both the public sector and the welfare bill then there may be opportunity to increase spending on certain infrastructure projects which will increase the attractiveness of the UK for foreign companies and stimulate the growth of new home grown companies.

Reekwind wrote: »

And, as the UK prepares to stagger into an unprecedented triple-dip recession, what is it about Osborne's performance to date that convinces you that the Tories are more capable custodians of the economy? Genuine question

I think you've picked the one area of real difference between the two parties and the one area where Labour are unquestionably in the right: Tory austerity is not working

And the alternative is? You have faith in Ed Ball's economic policies? Lets increase spending, reverse the cuts and gamble that the economy will grow. And what if it doesnt grow, what then? Whether Austerity is working or not depends on your definition of working. Is it going to cure all of the UK's economic problems overnight? Of course not but it will over time. Economies need to get their house in order and countries will have to bite the bullet sooner or later. We cant keep spending like we did pre 2007 and hope that there is neverending growth. Maybe the Tories Austerity isnt perfect, I'm not arguing that it is. They could and maybe should prioritise their cuts in a better way and this I suppose is where ideologies come into play. What I do not doubt though is that some form of continued austerity is absolutely essential in order to safeguard the future of the UK economy.

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I've got no idea, but I think it's important to note that the party in power agreed to waive at least £1bn in tax revenue while constantly using rhetoric saying that we've all got to tighten our belts and pay our dues.

I've got no idea of Labour would have let them off or not, I don't exactly hold them to high standards, but if nothing else they wouldn't have been the shower of bastards telling us how they were going to have to slash a load of services because there's no money to provide them, then deciding they couldn't be arsed collecting an extra £1bn or so in tax revenue from a massively profitable multinational corporation.

I dont disagree with you. I think that legislation around taxing major corporations like Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc should be a lot tighter. They are benefitting from operating in this market and they need to be made pay for that privilege if they are profitable.

frag420

From the discussion here the next beers should be a riveting affair altogether!!

Speaking of which..............when is the next one, i promise not to miss it again!!

Fysh

frag420 wrote: »

From the discussion here the next beers should be a riveting affair altogether!!

Speaking of which..............when is the next one, i promise not to miss it again!!

Based on your contribution in the other thread, I'm scared of organising the next beers because I'll be told to have it at the Swan :P

enda1

Fysh wrote: »

Based on your contribution in the other thread, I'm scared of organising the next beers because I'll be told to have it at the Swan :P

How abouts Broadway market lunch and afternoon beers in London Fields Brewery.
Something a bit different.

frag420

enda1 wrote: »

How abouts Broadway market lunch and afternoon beers in London Fields Brewery.
Something a bit different.

Well considering I am currently staying on broadway market I guess I could make the next one!!

frag420

Fysh wrote: »

Based on your contribution in the other thread, I'm scared of organising the next beers because I'll be told to have it at the Swan :P

Other thread? The Swan? Dafook??

Fysh

frag420 wrote: »

Other thread? The Swan? Dafook??

Wait, no, it wasn't you pushing for Beers @ The Swan, never mind. All this politicking has me confused, clearly...

ballsymchugh

Fysh wrote: »

Wait, no, it wasn't you pushing for Beers @ The Swan, never mind. All this politicking has me confused, clearly...

the swan is a no go for a meet up anyway. if the crowd moves there later on, then fine, but it's one of those places that would have no sign of life before 11ish.

Reekwind

Playboy wrote: »

The UK economy needs to reprioritise what it spends it's money on or else we will go bankrupt, become uncompetitive and swap our standard of living with the India and China's of the world

And so the Government protects living standards by placing the economic burden disproportionally on low and middle income households, weakening employee rights and protections, slashing benefits to poor and the working class, exerting downward pressure on wages and shedding jobs. In short: the UK government defends living standards by attacking living standards

We see the same in Ireland: a race to the bottom in a mad attempt to compete with countries of over a billion people on the basis of cost

The government is trying to encourage people on welfare back into the workforce and create an environment where the private sector will grow and provide jobs for people moving from the shrinking public sector

Which is itself strange: talking about getting people off welfare in the middle of a recession. 20% of 2011 graduates aren't unemployed because they're 'work-shy' but because there is a serious shortage of work to go around

But the mantra from the government is slashing benefits, 'shirkers v strivers' and other nonsense. The problem is not that people don't want to work or that there isn't enough work to go around. And that is not something that will be solved through cuts. Quite the opposite: by sucking money from the economy austerity is seriously undermining demand at home and preventing growth

It's also worth noting that of the welfare bill that needs to be 'leaned', only 3% of benefits goes directly to unemployment allowance. The biggest group that benefit from welfare are pensioners (42%). Nor has the welfare budget jumped noticeably: it actually fell under Labour before jumping with the recession. It's higher now than it was five years ago because (thanks George) we're still in recession

And the alternative is? You have faith in Ed Ball's economic policies? Lets increase spending, reverse the cuts and gamble that the economy will grow. And what if it doesnt grow, what then?

I don't think that the gamble is ignoring eight decades of economic orthodoxy and pursuing a deflationary policies in a recession

Whether Austerity is working or not depends on your definition of working

How about using Osborne's own targets, which he's consistently missed?

Playboy

Reekwind wrote: »

And so the Government protects living standards by placing the economic burden disproportionally on low and middle income households, weakening employee rights and protections, slashing benefits to poor and the working class, exerting downward pressure on wages and shedding jobs. In short: the UK government defends living standards by attacking living standards

We see the same in Ireland: a race to the bottom in a mad attempt to compete with countries of over a billion people on the basis of cost

Which is itself strange: talking about getting people off welfare in the middle of a recession. 20% of 2011 graduates aren't unemployed because they're 'work-shy' but because there is a serious shortage of work to go around

But the mantra from the government is slashing benefits, 'shirkers v strivers' and other nonsense. The problem is not that people don't want to work or that there isn't enough work to go around. And that is not something that will be solved through cuts. Quite the opposite: by sucking money from the economy austerity is seriously undermining demand at home and preventing growth

It's also worth noting that of the welfare bill that needs to be 'leaned', only 3% of benefits goes directly to unemployment allowance. The biggest group that benefit from welfare are pensioners (42%). Nor has the welfare budget jumped noticeably: it actually fell under Labour before jumping with the recession. It's higher now than it was five years ago because (thanks George) we're still in recession

I don't think that the gamble is ignoring eight decades of economic orthodoxy and pursuing a deflationary policies in a recession

How about using Osborne's own targets, which he's consistently missed?

I'm not going to get into a point by point debate because I dont have the time and there are no right answers to the questions, unfortunately thats the nature of economics.

I'm an advocate of austerity. I think the UK needs to rebalance it's economy and I believe the best way to do that is through reducing the deficit and the debt by reducing the size of the public sector and leaning the welfare bill amongst many other measures. Those two seem to be by far the most contentious along with the NHS. The global economy is still depressed, we have a Eurozone that staggers from one disaster to another and United States that is growing very slowly and stuggles with the debt ceiling issue. I do not think increasing public expenditure and gambling on growth as Labour would do is a prudent measure. How to cut public expenditure is an ideological issue and to be honest my only concern is that it is cut in a manner that does least harm to economy. I havent seen one credible economic proposal from Balls, usually he has pie in the sky ideas or is too busy focusing on what the opposition are doing. Labour provide no credible alternative to austerity that I can see so I stand my my original assertion that I'm much happier with a Tory government as whilst the UK isnt growing as quickly as I would like at least we are not heading for bankruptcy which I firmly believe under Labour we would heading.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a point by point debate because I dont have the time and there are no right answers to the questions, unfortunately thats the nature of economics.

I'm an advocate of austerity. I think the UK needs to rebalance it's economy and I believe the best way to do that is through reducing the deficit and the debt by reducing the size of the public sector and leaning the welfare bill amongst many other measures. Those two seem to be by far the most contentious along with the NHS. The global economy is still depressed, we have a Eurozone that staggers from one disaster to another and United States that is growing very slowly and stuggles with the debt ceiling issue. I do not think increasing public expenditure and gambling on growth as Labour would do is a prudent measure. How to cut public expenditure is an ideological issue and to be honest my only concern is that it is cut in a manner that does least harm to economy. I havent seen one credible economic proposal from Balls, usually he has pie in the sky ideas or is too busy focusing on what the opposition are doing. Labour provide no credible alternative to austerity that I can see so I stand my my original assertion that I'm much happier with a Tory government as whilst the UK isnt growing as quickly as I would like at least we are not heading for bankruptcy which I firmly believe under Labour we would heading.

I find it interesting that you advocate austerity while also advocating the widespread use of tax loopholes (which, if I remember your post in the other thread correctly allows earnings of something like £70-80kpa without paying tax). The thing about austerity and government spending being "out of control" is that tax avoidance on the part of the wealthy and high earners is a huge problem. To claim that the best solution is to push the impact of cuts onto the lowest earners while at the same time advocating the exact behaviour that at a corporate level contributes hugely to the problem is, er, interesting to say the least. (Yes, I know, it's perfectly legal and all the rest of it. But it contributes directly to the problem that you claim needs to be resolved, so perhaps it's worth considering that the Blessed Free Market's approach to tax regulation has directly contributed to this problem).

There's a fair amount of evidence to be seen in recent UK history that privatising services on which the public is dependent (eg energy services)
leads to higher prices for those services. When this is combined with a slack, cackhanded approach to privatisation which does not require the owners of the privatised services to be domiciled in the UK, the result is a net drain on the economy which benefits no bugger. And it's not like this is just something that happened in the past (under the Tories), Cameron's lot have been talking about future UK road infrastructure being developed on a toll system with Chinese ownership. Because nothing will help the UK economy compete with China quite like having road tolls being paid directly to Chinese owners.

You keep saying that Ed Balls isn't a credible alternative, as though George Osborne and his repeatedly missed economic targets is any more credible. The fact is, as it stands neither party has any real current credibility; however, one party is actively attacking almost all the public infrastructure that serves those on lower incomes under the guise of cuts but more realistically in the pursuit of privatising as much as they can because ideologically they believe privatisation to be best (which is perhaps unsurprising since they tend to be the party of the rich who would like to remain rich).