Forum menu
Chewy an explanation would be great because you are talking nonsense
Are you unfamiliar with his earlier work?
Better to remember the old adage: Never wrestle with a pig. You both get covered in shit, but the pig enjoys it
Look at his posts as a sort of Edinburgh fringe abstract comedy performance, and they're quite amusing
4000 people at British steel, I do wonder if Farage will be getting their vote.
Probably. Because despite British Steels loss being the fault of the English, your typical English window licker prefers to blame others.
4000 people at British steel, I do wonder if Farage will be getting their vote.
It'll be the EU's fault. No explanation will be given as to why, and it defies all logic, but it just is, ok?! Shout it often enough and it becomes the truth
The gullible half-wits will lap it up and go out and vote for the **** tomorrow, en masse
Chewy an explanation would be great because you are talking nonsense
Okay I shall explain as you have asked me to.
UK civil service 340,000 (at least 20k extra added since Brexit vite)
EU civil service 46,000
Which is more bureaucratic ?
This >>> EU civil service 46,000.
You already have 340,000 and you still want to add more on top of that (directly or indirectly)?
But most importantly it is about the entire system. Not how many people you hire.
As I said don’t agree with the killfile but when you refuse to explain how this fits with your rhetoric it points to trolling.
This my response to Cougar.
If you were to argue that bureaucracy is a well-oiled machine you have a leg to stand on.
You might argue that technology (IT) reduces bureaucracy but the question of authority and power remains. In fact the technology makes the machine (bureaucrats) more powerful as they can now control the system more tightly from behind the scene. The deviation from the system norm (rules and regulations set by the bureaucrats) means you are in breach of the system norm and will be punished (assuming you are external to the system). To change the system you will have to dismantle it totally which can be difficult but not impossible. The replacement will be a system norm that might be "leaner" or but that does not mean less bureaucratic. We cannot escape the system norm (bureaucratic rules etc) but at least we can "reboot" them from time to time which is necessary.
The below is my other reply ...
I think that’s more than just bureaucracy though Chewkw. Unless you live in a utopia, you need to have that admin chain behind your government structure. Someone, some group, has to do the turning of strategic direction into usable actions.
The problem is when that tail starts wagging the dog, when admin becomes the reason for admin. That’s when it gets out of control.
What you are arguing is that authority and power must reside centrally and the top down approach is advocated. Just like the feudal era where bureaucracy evolved from but now (current day bureaucracy) replaced by officials whose tasks are to focus on solely on administrative efficiency. Bureaucracy is supposed to be the means to achieve the ends but the means have now become the ends by itself.
If you apply that to the society you have a problem. i.e. if your thinking deviate from the system norm then you will encounter "errors".
Bureaucracy is inevitable for large organisation (nation state whatever) but that does not mean you need to make it worst.
Chewkw, your argument falls down when you consider that we will simply have to employ more people in the civil service.
For example, the MHRA is now going to have to expand - or we just accept that anything the EMA says is safe, is safe for us. That isn't taking back control is it?
Besides that, libertarian societies do not work in the modern age. In our complicated world, with matters such as climate change needing focussed leadership plus educated decisions and direction made on the behalf of society,so you need regulation and the strong application of the rule of law.
So to achieve less bureaucracy we have to have more bureaucrats? I shall fix this oil spill with more oil to cover up the existing oil. Chewkw has outchewkwed himself.
Chewkw, your argument falls down when you consider that we will simply have to employ more people in the civil service now.
Employing more people and complying with bureaucratic rules are two different issues.
Technically speaking bureaucracy may force people to work more as the system considers people to be disposable or able to do their work efficiently, hence there may or may not be an increased in head count.
However, there is also the possibilities that in order to prevent people from overworked or to improve work efficiency (many hands make light work) and to have work life balance etc ... more people are employed.
Essentially, what you do not want is another system that artificially imposes on your system where you are forced to hire more beyond your ability.
For example, the MHRA is now going to have to expand – or we just accept that anything the EMA says is safe, is safe for us. That isn’t taking back control is it?
That depends on the experts' views.
If you are in a bureaucratic system you will need to accept whatever is offered to you.
So to achieve less bureaucracy we have to have more bureaucrats? I shall fix this oil spill with more oil to cover up the existing oil. Chewkw has outchewkwed himself.
It is about authority and power. You have the flexibility to decide if there is a need to have more bureaucrats or not. However, if that flexibility is taken away then you simply need to comply regardless.
Essentially, what you do not want is another system that artificially imposes on your system where you are forced to hire more beyond your ability
But that will happen because we will always have to comply with EU rules to sell there, so not only will we have to employ more people to license drugs for the UK market. We will also have to employ a lot more people in the private sector to make sure drugs manufactured here are certified in the EU.
Essentially, what you do not want is another system that artificially imposes on your system where you are forced to hire more beyond your ability.
This is exactly what we are doing by leaving. We worked with our European partners before and developed one aligned system, there was no artificial doubling up.
It is about authority and power. You have the flexibility to decide if there is a need to have more bureaucrats or not. However, if that flexibility is taken away then you simply need to comply regardless.
Flexibility is what we had in, we have less flexibility out due to economic realities. Your definition of free doesn't take into account theoretical Vs real freedom.
6 o clock news. The people are angry.
Looks like the protest vote for Farage will outnumber the protest vote against the Conservatives and Labour.
But that will happen because we will always have to comply with EU rules to sell there, so not only will we have to employ more people to license drugs for the UK market. We will also have to employ a lot more people in the private sector to make sure drugs manufactured here are certified in the EU.
The flexibility is ours and it works both ways. They comply with our rules we comply with theirs if we all want to trade amicably.
This is exactly what we are doing by leaving. We worked with our European partners before and developed one aligned system, there was no artificial doubling up.
The alignment of system depends entirely on your organisation and agreement. The main question here who is in charge. Again, power come into play ...
Flexibility is what we had in, we have less flexibility out due to economic realities. Your definition of free doesn’t take into account theoretical Vs real freedom.
Put it another way you will have even less flexibility if you are being imposed on. However, true freedom is very difficult to achieve but making it less is not the way to go.
the EU.
The flexibility is ours and it works both ways. They comply with our rules we comply with theirs if we all want to trade amicably.
Thats not how economics works, we are a tiny market compared to the EU. We will have to comply with their rules no matter whether we like it or not.
Put it another way you will have even less flexibility if you are being imposed on. However, true freedom is very difficult to achieve but making it less is not the way to go
We were helping to make the rules, there was no imposition when it came to medicines. The MHRA was widely considered to be a thought leader by the EU and an agency to copy and listen to. We will not have the flexibility to do that now, we will be rule takers in the area of Pharmaceuticals.
This >>> EU civil service 46,000.
You already have 340,000 and you still want to add more on top of that (directly or indirectly)?
But most importantly it is about the entire system. Not how many people you hire.
But this is total nonsense, that's 46,000 shared between 28 countries and; iver 550,000,000 people.
The UK alone has had to hire 20,000 just to handle Brexit & now we have more bureaucracy, I have to arrange transport of biohazard materials between countries, to the EU it's simple, 1 form good for 27 countries. that's a huge reduction in bureaucracy, compared to 27 different forms.That's a huge benefit replicated access every sector and it's an immense benefit to the country.
Your argument makes literally no sense whatsoever !
The lie of "small government", i.e. less bureaucracy is that it's inefficient when compared to private business when in fact the exact opposite is true. The UK has an adult population of roughly 46 million so with 340,000 civil servants that's 0.7%. Most businesses have at least 5% admin staff of various sorts and depending on the business up to 20% may be employed away from the front line (cleaners, caterers, etc.).
The truth about imposing less bureaucracy, i.e. governance, is that it allows businesses to get away with things they otherwise couldn't and shouldn't do. Read this analysis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/boeing_two_deadly_crashes of the balance of power between the FAA and Boeing as an example.
Freedom is marketing, it's a sales pitch. It doesn't matter unless not having it stops you doing what you want to do. Now, in the UK we all have political freedom and relatively quite a bit of freedom enshrined in law. But there's a lot we can't do because we need to live in a society that functions. Like most places. We actually need less than complete freedom, so that we are protected from other people exercising it.
Fetishising freedom as an abstract concept is worthless, it's a tool used by people who want power so that they can be allowed to do what THEY want to do. Because it sounds good but actually serves THEIR interests, not yours. What we need is the right amount of freedom, not too much.
The opposite of freedom is restrictions. We need restrictions; for example on the chemicals we can dump into the environment, the quality of our food and goods, and so on. Because otherwise, things will get very very shitty very quickly. So, back on topic, the EU is well placed to create these restrictions because it is NOT a national government. National governments seek power so often do whatever it takes to make the economy strong and create wealth. They NEED to do this, otherwise they will be replaced. If they are the only creators of rules then there's no incentive for them to do anything that might harm the economy.
The EU however is one layer of government away from national governments. And crucially, it affects a wide range of countries that would otherwise be slashing regulations (or ignoring them) to increase their competitiveness. It's like having Marquess of Queensbury rules in boxing. You can still fight, but the rules ultimately provide basic protection.
This is a main reason why I am pro-EU. It's BECAUSE they are imposing rules on all governments together, so it's not necessary to flout them to make a quick buck.
Thats not how economics works, we are a tiny market compared to the EU. We will have to comply with their rules no matter whether we like it or not.
5th largest economy is a tiny market? They comply with ours we comply with theirs. Work both ways.
Info here
We were helping to make the rules, there was no imposition when it came to medicines. The MHRA was widely considered to be a thought leader by the EU and an agency to copy and listen to. We will not have the flexibility to do that now, we will be rule takers in the area of Pharmaceuticals.
That is for the pharmaceutical industry to decide what standard they intend to set and who they can impose on.
But this is total nonsense, that’s 46,000 shared between 28 countries and; iver 550,000,000 people.
Notice that you need to hire extra people to maintain the EU system in addition to those in the country. The EU system can be do without simply put.
The UK alone has had to hire 20,000 just to handle Brexit & now we have more bureaucracy, I have to arrange transport of biohazard materials between countries, to the EU it’s simple, 1 form good for 27 countries. that’s a huge reduction in bureaucracy, compared to 27 different forms.That’s a huge benefit replicated access every sector and it’s an immense benefit to the country.
The irony is that we need to hire more people to handle Brexit to get out from the EU bureaucratic system ...
As for using 1 form for 27 countries do you see the change to 27 different form in future?
Your argument makes literally no sense whatsoever !
🤔
This is a main reason why I am pro-EU. It’s BECAUSE they are imposing rules on all governments together, so it’s not necessary to flout them to make a quick buck.
The one size fits all rules might be beneficial to some industries but Not to all (countries). The one rule for all argument is essentially the strength of bureaucracy where everyone is treated the same.
What you are arguing is very similar to the standard setting argument where complying with a particular standard assures familiarity and confidence. The problem is the authority and power that set the standard by restricting or imposing on others.
If we were to live in a pluralistic society shouldn't we retain some flexibility as to whether we wish to comply or not to comply with the rules?
Commons leader Andrea Leadsom quits government over Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48374098
The one size fits all rules might be beneficial to some industries but Not to all (countries).
So, some countries don't need clean safe swimming beaches then? Which ones are those? Which EU countries are being harmed by them?
The point is that 'don't give a shit' countries like Britain can't get away with not bothering to spend money on environmental protection.
Can I just say that my prediction from yesterday seems to have actually happened
Apparently, the entire cabinet has this morning signed up to the Maybot’s latest ‘bold, new’ withdrawal bill.
So expect half of them to resign before it makes it into parliament in order to vote against it. The first will probably be gone by close of play today. I’m going Andrea Leadson as part of her latest leadership bid
She's first out of the gate. I expect the rest will follow shortly
Damn! Didn't put any money on it! 🙁
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48374098& another wheel on the Maybot wagon comes off...
Ironically, the contributor most suited to being a bureaucrat is chewkw.
Ironically, the contributor most suited to being a bureaucrat is chewkw.
It is no surprise really as I have already told everyone on this forum I am a low ranking bureaucrat. If I were to get my power and authority all of you will have to comply.
Do as I say regardless and feel the full force of my poweerrrrr ... in office ... 🤣
So chewkw as a low ranking bureaucrat thinks there is too much bureaucracy and instead proposed dictatorship. Figures really.
So basically you think the EU is in need of reform then? Glad we agree. How do you propose we facilitate that after we've left?
5th largest economy is a tiny market?
Further reading:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/news/economy/uk-france-biggest-economies-in-the-world/index.html
Makes you think.
Hopefully.
GDP/per capita we are down in the 20s.
More polling on the scotland situation which adds little clarity to what I said before. Looks like your anti brexit tactical vote is green or lib dem or possibly snp to oust the tories - probably in that order but depends what poll you read. some have the lib dems best placed to do this, some the greens.
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/05/22/european-elections-2019-what-will-happen-in-scotland/
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/european-parliament-election-2019-vote-intention-scotland/
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-do-you-think-you-would-vote-in-the-2019-european-election#table
Oh God...you got suckered in, didn't you? Let me guess, nothing makes any sense, there's zero citations supporting assertions and the whole thing is contradictory to the point that anyone without the killfile reading this thread is thinking "Huh?".
It's done on purpose. No-one is that obtuse by accident.
Anyway, back on topic for a moment. May clearly isn't intending on going anywhere, partly because she knows that her likely replacement isn't known for his careful, considered response to anything. Now more than ever we need a leader of the Conservative Party who can broaden their appeal beyond a dwindling membership base with an ideology that's increasingly out of step with actual people - if you care to venture beyond our echo chamber, you'll find food banks, poverty and the humiliation that it brings have increased in the last nine years. That the backlash has been deflected and parried so that the narrative reads "let's leave the EU on some magical technicality and they'll have to do our bidding because we're British and we helped win a war, seventy five years ago and we actually want the most damaging Brexit imaginable" is a triumph for the party that brought us here. I'm tired of debating with people who - and let's be kind - have never read the small print on a mobile phone contract, yet are experts in how to best interpret GATT24.
Makes you think.
That you should look at up-to-date figures rather than an 18 month old article, which have been discussed before on this very thread, UK growth has actually been better than France and Germany in the last year, such that we have edged ahead of France again.
Leadsom!
How? How on earth can someone so obviously as thick as pig shit end up in a position like Leader of the House of Commons?
The likes of her, Duncan Smith, Davies, Raab And Fox owe Chris Grayling a lot as only such a total bellend could be a lightning rod for their preservation.
God help us.
How on earth can someone so obviously as thick as pig shit end up in a position like Leader of the House of Commons?
Consolation prize for not being PM? I also dont think its really that important a post. Could be wrong but seems mostly ceremonial rather than real decision making.
Of course it could equally be asked how the hell did she get to be an MP at all.
Mefty - I suspect without looking you’re correct (and wasn’t much of the slip due to exchange rates originally anyway) however I think the general point being made that 5th or 6th is still pretty small compared to the totality of the EU economy.
Now whether that matters...
Good to see you back by the way - voting Green tomorrow?
How will May cope without the towering intellect of ledsome!!??!
Good old Dave, give the swivel eyed ,(his words not mine) a referendum & settle the Tory Europe issue once & for all 😀
It's settled now, he's killed the Tory party, shame they had to drag the country along with them!
Any leader, regardless, that offers the possibility of a 2nd referendum just after the referendum is committing a career suicide ... 🤣
Initially, I thought PM May had the guts to take us out with No Deal but she caved in ... 😄 (initially I supported her because she was the best option)
Corbyn is much more intelligent by not stating his position clearly or he would go the same way to the chopping block. Instead he let his followers do the talking so nothing stick to him. True art of politics 👍 🤣
PM May could have done the right thing by championing the No Deal to fight her way through to have a better chance to go down in history as a PM that stands her ground, instead she turns herself into a remainder ... I mean how silly is that! Even if she is a secret remainder as a PM she simply cannot/should not go against the referendum or the wishes of the majority 🤣
Lesson to learn for future PM or leaders. Do Not go against the wishes of the referendum or the majority. Simples. 😌
Leadsome has actually done a pretty good job as Leader of the House, managing the timetable has been pretty fraught but she has stuck to it, she has made a difference in sorting out decent working conditions for parliamentary staff - see bullying allegations - and has politely put Bercow in his place on occasions. Her stock has certainly risen among many parliamentarians. Don't see any prospect of her becoming leader though.
voting Green tomorrow?
Unlikely, I have known the lead Brexit candidate for 40 years and he is capable, hard working and intelligent - all admirable qualities - not sure yet.
Leadsome has actually done a pretty good job as Leader of the House, ...
Yes, she is good but she does not have the look of a leader.
Whether you agree or disagree in British politics the last strong leader was Thatcher ...
Ok, you may include Blair if you wish to ...
The current crop of politicians from the two or three main parties are all weak ... many can easily be seen as chancers.
I've actually been surprised by how well Leadsom has done specifically as Leader, even though she's undermined the position by still being a compulsive liar outside of the commons.
Can I just say that my prediction from yesterday seems to have actually happened
Has your May/Corbyn brexit stitch up (next week) happened yet? You seemed quite sure a few weeks back.
by still being a compulsive liar outside of the commons.
The city high flyer!
Not to mention mixing up Thangam Debbonaire and Rupa Huq recently...well...back in February. I suppose they're both a bit brown...
Whoever it was a couple of pages back predicted a non sequitur wins a prize.
managing the timetable has been pretty fraught
It's been mostly empty.
, I have known the lead Brexit candidate for 40 years and he is capable, hard working and intelligent
I'd rather spend time with people who are incapable, lazy and below average IQ but with qualities such as humanity, an open mind, caring, thoughtful and capable of independant thought, trustworthy, honest, selfless, helpful... .
Care to name your friend, Mefty so we can Google and discuss his qualities and faults objectively rather than just believe you. All the ones I've looked up are nasty pieces of work.
It would be interesting to know which one Meftys pal is - seeing as all analysis I have seen shows what a thoroughly unpleasant bunch they are
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-brexit-party-european-election-candidates-but-were-afraid-to-ask/22/05/?fbclid=IwAR0g8RNfQXyJBlks6PGwrO5dCdOd1DJeadh3-jMIUgwuw-o49s8JFMT9r6s
More on tactical voting. Still no huge clarity on the best candidate in Scotland.
The SNP is the leading Remain party in Scotland and looks as if it should get three seats without being particularly close to getting a fourth. There appears to be little chance of Lib Dem or Change UK winning a seat. The last two seats are close between Greens, Conservatives, Labour and Brexit. The Greens are ahead but well within the margin of error. Nevertheless, the best way to make sure one of the Remain parties doesn't miss out narrowly is to vote Green.
Remain voters may also want to consider giving Labour some help to stay ahead of the Conservatives and avert the risk of a second Brexit party seat. Scottish Remain supporters currently intending to vote Labour should probably stick with it. Labour’s lead candidate is David Martin, a senior figure in the Party of European Socialists and a Labour Remain signatory.