The downfall of the Tory party.

[Agentgonzo]

my question was about the post 2019 govt. I am pretty sure the 50pct tax rate was abolished years before

That's my bad. Sorry. I thought that the Tory party were in government before 2019.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Wait until labour get in power then we can all bash them. It is the fashion. Always has been.

People are already predicting they are going to be worse than this lot in this thread and they haven't got in yet

 

[Agentgonzo]

People are already predicting they are going to be worse than this lot in this thread and they haven't got in yet

Indeed. That seems to be the standard response to people criticising the Tories. Not "no, you're wrong, they are doing a good job", but "better the devil you know".

 

[Justin Dean]

Indeed. That seems to be the standard response to people criticising the Tories. Not "no, you're wrong, they are doing a good job", but "better the devil you know".

Not what I meant more bashing politics is a good rant. I do wonder what any of us would actually achieve if we were responsible for policy

 

[Justin Dean]

Reading back there is a fair amount of assumption on this thread

 

[MattH1973]

"Eat out to help out" was possibly the stupidest thing that anyone could ever have come up with.

I wanted to come back to this as I'm intrigued why you highlight "Eat Out to Help Out" as the "stupidest thing". During the pandemic some terrible mistakes were made that undoubtedly destroyed lives and caused deaths. Examples include the failure to put adequate controls around the vulnerable in care homes (which were a major contributor to Covid deaths in spring/summer 2020) and the failure to prioritise the opening of schools when lockdown 1 was removed.

If it's cabaret you want then there were plenty of policies that were ridiculous to the point of hilarity. We had the prohibition on drinking alcohol whilst standing up, the scotch egg rule, and the criminalising of sitting on a park bench, or using a children's playground.

Maybe EOTHO was a mistake and maybe it wasn't, but why do you (and so many others) put it on a pedestal in this way ? I am intrigued.....

 

[dad_of_jon]

wasn't EOTHO designed to help a sector that had been hammered by the very lockdown the government introduced and who according to certain undisclosed whats-app messages meant to scare the public into staying home?

so scare them to stay home , then bribe them to go out, that was the inconsistent messaging.

 

[Agentgonzo]

I wanted to come back to this as I'm intrigued why you highlight "Eat Out to Help Out" as the "stupidest thing". During the pandemic some terrible mistakes were made that undoubtedly destroyed lives and caused deaths. Examples include the failure to put adequate controls around the vulnerable in care homes (which were a major contributor to Covid deaths in spring/summer 2020) and the failure to prioritise the opening of schools when lockdown 1 was removed.

Mistakes will always be made, and we can never prevent deaths. All of the above were caused by the failure to do something.

Eat out to spread it about was different. It was a direct action to get people to do something, and in this case, a huge incentive for people to go out and actively mix in the middle of a global pandemic. And more than that, it was a complete u-turn from the previous months' consistent message of "don't mix" at a point where it was obvious we weren't out of the woods. And even more than that, it was immediately followed by yet another huge lockdown (probably in part because we'd all just been out and mixing.

So in short, we went directly from being told to stay at home and not mix, to being actively encouraged to go out and mix, to bring told to stay home and not mix. It was mixed messaging at best, and dangerous incompetence at worst.

We had the prohibition on drinking alcohol whilst standing up, the scotch egg rule, and the criminalising of sitting on a park bench, or using a children's playground.

Maybe EOTHO was a mistake and maybe it wasn't, but why do you (and so many others) put it on a pedestal in this way ? I am intrigued.....

None of the cabaret you mention above were top-item government policies. Yes, it was a farce, but it was from trying to draw the line between what people could and couldn't do in a confusing and rapidly changing world. No-one stood at the podium in number 10 and announced the Next Big Initiative was the scotch egg rule, or sitting on a park bench. EOTHO was different. It WAS a big government initiative. It was a policy in it's own right and they stood there at the podium to tell us all about it. That's why it's singled out.

And yes, the hospitality industry got hit hard by the lockdown. But so did a lot of others. Shops, taxis, travel, hotels, theatres, musicians, teachers, arts... The list goes on. But none of them got a huge number 10 policy to sure up their business. Why was the restaurant/pub industry incentivised above others? (Rhetorical: it's because Tim Martin is a MASSIVE Tory donor and he wanted people back in his pubs).

Hope that's cleared those questions up for you.

 

[Justin Dean]

Mistakes will always be made, and we can never prevent deaths. All of the above were caused by the failure to do something.

Eat out to spread it about was different. It was a direct action to get people to do something, and in this case, a huge incentive for people to go out and actively mix in the middle of a global pandemic. And more than that, it was a complete u-turn from the previous months' consistent message of "don't mix" at a point where it was obvious we weren't out of the woods. And even more than that, it was immediately followed by yet another huge lockdown (probably in part because we'd all just been out and mixing.

So in short, we went directly from being told to stay at home and not mix, to being actively encouraged to go out and mix, to bring told to stay home and not mix. It was mixed messaging at best, and dangerous incompetence at worst.


None of the cabaret you mention above were top-item government policies. Yes, it was a farce, but it was from trying to draw the line between what people could and couldn't do in a confusing and rapidly changing world. No-one stood at the podium in number 10 and announced the Next Big Initiative was the scotch egg rule, or sitting on a park bench. EOTHO was different. It WAS a big government initiative. It was a policy in it's own right and they stood there at the podium to tell us all about it. That's why it's singled out.

And yes, the hospitality industry got hit hard by the lockdown. But so did a lot of others. Shops, taxis, travel, hotels, theatres, musicians, teachers, arts... The list goes on. But none of them got a huge number 10 policy to sure up their business. Why was the restaurant/pub industry incentivised above others? (Rhetorical: it's because Tim Martin is a MASSIVE Tory donor and he wanted people back in his pubs).

Hope that's cleared those questions up for you.

I went out to help out and the separation was good . Did anyone criticising go and do same?

 

[dad_of_jon]

I went out to help out and the separation was good . Did anyone criticising go and do same?

I didn't. I spotted the flip/flop messaging. I took my own precautions which were better than the advice to the "general population". There's a clue there about the nature of advice . A lot of advice given to wales was actually more likely to increase my risk of catching covid so I ignored that. I emailed Mark Drakeford about it and by pure coincidence the next set of guidance issued was less stupid.

 

[LeeH]

This made my pee boil.

*not the most reliable source.

Taxpayers hand caravan park tycoon a fortune to house asylum seekers


Taxpayers hand caravan park tycoon a fortune to house asylum seekers

 

[Chippy_Tea]

*not the most reliable source.

They reported it on LBC a few minutes ago, they also reported it's costing £800 per night to keep an asylum seeker on thr barge.

 

[MattH1973]

Mistakes will always be made, and we can never prevent deaths. All of the above were caused by the failure to do something.

Eat out to spread it about was different. It was a direct action to get people to do something, and in this case, a huge incentive for people to go out and actively mix in the middle of a global pandemic. And more than that, it was a complete u-turn from the previous months' consistent message of "don't mix" at a point where it was obvious we weren't out of the woods. And even more than that, it was immediately followed by yet another huge lockdown (probably in part because we'd all just been out and mixing.

So in short, we went directly from being told to stay at home and not mix, to being actively encouraged to go out and mix, to bring told to stay home and not mix. It was mixed messaging at best, and dangerous incompetence at worst.


None of the cabaret you mention above were top-item government policies. Yes, it was a farce, but it was from trying to draw the line between what people could and couldn't do in a confusing and rapidly changing world. No-one stood at the podium in number 10 and announced the Next Big Initiative was the scotch egg rule, or sitting on a park bench. EOTHO was different. It WAS a big government initiative. It was a policy in it's own right and they stood there at the podium to tell us all about it. That's why it's singled out.

And yes, the hospitality industry got hit hard by the lockdown. But so did a lot of others. Shops, taxis, travel, hotels, theatres, musicians, teachers, arts... The list goes on. But none of them got a huge number 10 policy to sure up their business. Why was the restaurant/pub industry incentivised above others? (Rhetorical: it's because Tim Martin is a MASSIVE Tory donor and he wanted people back in his pubs).

Hope that's cleared those questions up for you.

Thanks for responding, life would be very dull if we all always agreed (indeed, that would lead to the groupthink that was such a problem with the pandemic. So you think that the complete U turn was the biggest policy fail and I think it was the failure protect vulnerable care home residents and the disasterous policy choice not to prioritise keeping schools open. We can agree to disagree on that, and it is nice to that in a civil and friendly way with a group that share a common interest. Sorry this is a bit long, but there is quite a lot of context to explain.

But it remains intriguing why so many people focus on EOTHO. For example, of we want to criticise U turns and mixed messaging why not focus on the fiasco that was schools policy on January 2021? Schools opened for one day, before being closed again, as a result of the lockdown groupthink. That meant most children only attended one term of school during the calendar year April 2020 to April 2021, causing terrible education detriment and significant youth mental health issues that are now higher than ever.

You suggest in your post that mixing (and therefore EOTHO) caused lockdown 2 – which as an aside you incorrectly suggest was “huge” – it was actually a month long with schools staying open – much less severe than lockdown 1 or 3, but I digress. The numerous problems with the argument that mixing causes lockdowns are as follows.

1 – lockdowns were a policy choice. They were not caused by mixing. Had mixing been a direct cause then everywhere in the world would have locked down. Sweden and various free thinking US states didn’t (or at least had much less severe restrictions) and yet their excess mortality over the duration of the pandemic was better, or at least not worse, than their near neighbours with similar demographics. Lockdowns were caused by groupthink – EOTHO was I think Sunak’s way of challenging this groupthink – perhaps not a success but nowhere the catastrophe of schools and care home policies.

2 – It is a common argument amongst lockdown fans (ie those, usually on the left, that asserted that earlier, longer and harder lockdowns were the answer to everything) that EOTHO caused the second wave. A SAGE member, John Edmunds, made this argument at the inquiry last week. The obvious problem with that argument is that the 2nd wave in many European countries and the US looked very similar. I am pretty sure they didn’t run EOTHO schemes also.

3 – Covid goes up and down in natural waves. Whilst restricting contact obviously stops some transmission in the short term, the way Covid has gone up and down in natural cycles since restrictions ended in H2 2021 demonstrates this. And excess mortality rates in countries with very different lockdown policies suggest that, very sadly, the virus finds the vulnerable in the end. People have always died in pandemics, and in large numbers, tragic as that is.

4 – A case in point, that SAGE never mention, is that they asked cabinet for a lockdown in Dec 2021 to deal with Omicron. Cabinet rejected this, and hospitalisations and deaths were orders of magnitude lower than the SAGE projections. This proves that SAGE were deliberately trying to scare people into compliance as published minutes earlier in the pandemic demonstrate. EOTHO was an understandable rebellion against this, and without that mentality we would have been locked down again in Christmas 2021. I don’t praise the government for much, but I will praise them for that.

I realise that my views are in the minority, and that others will disagree. Thank goodness we are avoiding groupthink…...

 

[Justin Dean]

Captain Hindsight and the blob are firmly in charge these times. It is so sad. The country is so focussed on inane nonsense and productivity suffers

 

[Thorbz]

This country has zero self awareness. Just as well, really, given the stupidity of it's opinions.

 

[Justin Dean]

Ouch

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Just as well, really, given the stupidity of it's opinions.

Was that a typo?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

​

By Yasmin Rufo
BBC News

A Conservative MP has been found guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence after telling an activist to "go back to Bahrain".
Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham in south-east London, got into a row with activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei outside the Foreign Office's Lancaster House in Westminster on 14 December.
He told Mr Alwadaei: "You're taking money off my country, go away."
Chief magistrate Paul Goldspring fined the MP £600.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard the 74-year-old had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini Embassy when Mr Alwadaei, the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, shouted: "Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?"
Stewart replied: "Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain."
Mr Alwadaei challenged Stewart on his connections with Bahrain, asking repeatedly whether he had accepted any money from the Bahraini government.
The MP, who was stationed in Bahrain as an Army officer in the 1960s, told the campaigner to "get stuffed" and added: "Bahrain's a great place. End of."
Paul Jarvis, prosecuting, told the court: "Mr Alwadaei felt upset and humiliated by what had taken place."
He added: "He (Stewart) demonstrated racial hostility towards Mr Alwadaei by way of his comments."
However, the prosecutor said Stewart "was not motivated by racial hostility".

'Honour at stake'​

Asked for his thoughts on the allegations of racial hostility, Stewart said: "That's absurd, it's totally unfair. My life has been, I don't want to say destroyed, but I am deeply hurt at having to appear in a court like this.
"I am not a racist. He was saying that I was corrupt and that I had taken money.
"My honour was at stake in front of a large number of ambassadors."
Claire Walsh, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor of the CPS, said: "His claim that his words were misinterpreted was rejected by the court in light of evidence presented by the CPS, including footage filmed by a witness and the victim's testimony.
"Hatred of any kind has no place in society and wherever our legal test is met, the CPS will not hesitate to prosecute those who perpetrate hate crimes."
The MP was also ordered to pay legal costs of £835.
His £600 fine would have been £400 had it not been for the seriousness of the hate crime he committed, the CPS said.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Just when you thought this lot couldn't stoop any lower Suella Braverman decides the homeless that use tents to keep dry see them as a "lifestyle choice" i think they should put her in one for a week and see if she changes her mind, its easy to say they have other options but she hasn't a clue how many homeless people are on the streets and how many places there are for them if they dont want to live in tents, people dont choose to live in tents on street corners begging for food they are there because this lot have mismanaged the country for 13 years, the mind really does boggle.



The home secretary is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, arguing that many of them see it as a "lifestyle choice".
Suella Braverman's plan would introduce new penalties in England and Wales for homeless people whom authorities believe have rejected offers of help.
The plan was to stop "those who cause nuisance... by pitching tents in public spaces," she said.
Housing charity Shelter said: "Nobody should be punished for being homeless".
The plan is expected to be included in the King's speech on Tuesday, which sets out the government's legislative agenda and is expected to focus heavily on law and order.
Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, Ms Braverman said: "Nobody in Britain should be living in a tent on our streets. There are options for people who don't want to be sleeping rough."
She said the government would always support those who are genuinely homeless, but added: "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."
She added: "What I want to stop, and what the law-abiding majority wants us to stop, is those who cause nuisance and distress to other people by pitching tents in public spaces, aggressively begging, stealing, taking drugs, littering and blighting our communities."
Unless action is taken, she said, "British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug taking and squalor."
According to the Financial Times, the proposals are designed to replace elements of the 1824 Vagrancy Act.
The paper reported that sources had said the plans being considered were for two clauses to be inserted in the new criminal justice bill, which applies to England and Wales. This would target tents that cause a nuisance - such as by obstructing shop doorways.
According to the report, the proposals include creating a civil offence whereby charities could be fined for handing out tents if they were deemed to have caused a nuisance.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter said: "Living on the streets is not a lifestyle choice."
She added: "Homelessness happens when housing policy fails and boils down to people not being able to afford to live anywhere.
"Private rents are at an all-time high, evictions are rising and the cost of living crisis continues."
Labour's deputy leader, Angela Rayner added that the government should take responsibility for the housing crisis, rather than blame homeless people.
"A toxic mix of rising rents and a failure to end no-fault evictions are hitting vulnerable people, yet after years of delay the Tories still haven't kept their promises to act," she said.
The Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, Alistair Carmichael, said it was "grim politics" to "criminalise homeless charities for simply trying to keep vulnerable people warm and dry in winter".
He added: "This policy will do nothing to stop rough sleeping and will leave vulnerable people to face the harsh weather conditions without any shelter whatsoever."
London mayor Sadiq Khan described the proposal as "deeply depressing".
"The government should be investing more in social housing, uplifting housing benefit rates and banning no-fault evictions," he wrote on X.

BBC news.

 

[Old Fart At Play]

Just when you thought this lot couldn't stoop any lower Suella Braverman decides the homeless that use tents to keep dry see them as a "lifestyle choice" i think they should put her in one for a week and see if she changes her mind, its easy to say they have other options but she hasn't a clue how many homeless people are on the streets and how many places there are for them if they dont want to live in tents, people dont choose to live in tents on street corners begging for food they are there because this lot have mismanaged the country for 13 years, the mind really does boggle.



The home secretary is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, arguing that many of them see it as a "lifestyle choice".
Suella Braverman's plan would introduce new penalties in England and Wales for homeless people whom authorities believe have rejected offers of help.
The plan was to stop "those who cause nuisance... by pitching tents in public spaces," she said.
Housing charity Shelter said: "Nobody should be punished for being homeless".
The plan is expected to be included in the King's speech on Tuesday, which sets out the government's legislative agenda and is expected to focus heavily on law and order.
Writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, Ms Braverman said: "Nobody in Britain should be living in a tent on our streets. There are options for people who don't want to be sleeping rough."
She said the government would always support those who are genuinely homeless, but added: "We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice."

Absolutely disgusting