UKMT September 2015: David Cameron Fucked a Dead Pig - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September 2015: David Cameron Fucked a Dead Pig

Pantsuit: Oct 28, 2013

I never got a paper ballot, just voted online.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 12:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 03:54

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

OP is excellent, good work!

# ? Sep 1, 2015 12:22

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/david-cameron-nick-clegg-snobbish-arrogant-emails-to-hillary-clinton

quote:

Emails to the US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton from a close confidant portrayed the British prime minister, David Cameron, as snobbish, William Hague as disingenuous and the first coalition government budget as draconian.

The messages from Clinton�s unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal paint an unflattering picture of the Conservative politicians taking over from the Gordon Brown government in 2010.

Marked as confidential, Blumenthal writes (pdf) that the popularity of the Liberal Democrats was cratering after the passage of a �draconian Cameron government� budget.

The emails were released under US freedom of information laws after it emerged Clinton had used a personal email account for government business. Clinton is being forced to release the emails in monthly instalments.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0128/DOC_0C05777221/C05777221.pdf

quote:

The result is that, following the attacks by the financial markets on Greece and then Spain, everybody is now in a mood
of retrenchment. "It's not just pre-Keynesian, it's Hooverite," he says. By which he means governments are not just
refusing to stimulate, they are making cuts, as Herbert Hoover did in the US in 1929 � when he turned the Wall Street
Crash into the Great Depression. "Hoover had this idea that, whenever you go into recession, deficits grow, so he
decided to go for cuts � which is what the foolish financial markets that got us into this trouble in the first place now
want." It has become the new received wisdom throughout Europe. But it is the classic error made by those who confuse a household's economics with those of a national economy.

"The old story is still true: you cut expenditures and the economy goes down. We have lots of experiments which show
this, thanks to Herbert Hoover and the IMF," he adds. The IMF imposed that mistaken policy in Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Argentina and hosts of other developing countries in the 1980s and 1990s. "So we know what will happen: economies will get weaker, investment will get stymied and it's a downward vicious spiral. How far down we don't know � it could be a Japanese malaise. Japan did an experiment just like this in 1997; just as it was recovering, it raised VAT
and went into another recession."

Then why have we not learned from all that? Because politicians like George Osborne are driven by ideology; the national deficit is an excuse to shrink the state because that is what he wanted anyway.

lmao

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:05

Prince John: Jun 20, 2006; Oh, poppycock! Female bandits?

Oberleutnant posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/david-cameron-nick-clegg-snobbish-arrogant-emails-to-hillary-clintonlmao

It's brilliant.

quote:

But Clegg remains in negotiations. He seems quite intent on working it out with Cameron, it appears. His inner Tory magnetically draws him to his heritage.

It could be written in UKMT.

On a more serious note, does anyone have practical experience with the "time off to find alternative employment" part of the redundancy rules?

The guidance says

quote:

If you�ve been continuously employed for 2 years by the date your notice period ends, you�re allowed a reasonable amount of time off to:
- look for another job
- arrange training to help you find another job

How long you can take will depend on your circumstances. No matter how much time you take off each week to look for another job, your employer only has to pay you up to 40% of that week�s pay for it.

Example: You work 5 days a week and you take 4 days off in total during the whole notice period - your employer only has to pay you for the first 2 days.

So I'm reading that as saying "as long as you're not job searching/training for more than 2/5 days a week during your notice period, you'll continue to be paid a wage for those 2 days you're not in the office." Is that how it works in practice? Or is it "you can have 2 days off, in total, to look for jobs, no matter how long your notice period is"? Has anyone successfully taken advantage of this?

Prince John fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:11

KOGAHAZAN!!: Apr 29, 2013; a miserable failure as a person

an incredible success as a magical murder spider

quote:

His inner Tory magnetically draws him to his heritage

I cackled, no lie.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:16

team overhead smash: Sep 2, 2006; Team-Forest-Tree-Dog:
Smashing your way into our hearts one skylight at a time

Cooper's doen the first thing in a while (maybe ever) that makes me give her a modicum of respect and stood up for Syrian refugees.

quote:

Britain should be prepared to open its doors to refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria, Labour leadership contender Yvette Cooper has said.

The shadow home secretary said the failure to offer sanctuary to people trying to escape the �new totalitarianism� of Islamic State (IS) was �immoral� and �cowardly�.

She called on the government to exclude refugees from its target to reduce net migration to below 100,000 a year and suggested that it should be possible to take some 10,000 people seeking asylum.

In a speech to the Centre for European Reform in London, Cooper said acknowledged that her comments would be controversial at a time of heightened concern about immigration.

But in the face of the crisis in the Mediterranean with tens of thousands risking their lives in an attempt to reach safety in Europe, she said that it was essential to separate out the issue of asylum from the wider immigration debate.

�This has become a humanitarian crisis on a scale we have not seen on our continent since the Second World War. Yet we seem paralysed to respond,� she said.

�And its not just us. All Europe is struggling to respond. We can�t carry on like this. It�s immoral, it�s cowardly and it�s not the British way.�

Cooper contrasted Britain�s offer to take a few hundred Syrian refugees through a United Nations programme to the 1930s when in a matter of months the country accepted 10,000 Jewish children fleeing the Nazis.

�We have to step up to the plate. This has become a test not just of Europe�s values, but also of the EU�s resilience and ability to respond. And so far our continent has been found still wanting,� she said.

�And it is a test of British values too - of whether we will again be able to reach out to the rest of the world and help as we have done in previous generations, or whether we will turn inwards and turn our backs instead. And so far our country has been found still wanting too.�

Cooper said called for politicians of all parties to support a �national mission� to change attitudes, end the fear of the �politics of immigration�.

�That has to start with the government and its targets. For our country to have a net migration target which includes refugees is just immoral,� she said.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:18

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

She has previously been very clear that she doesn't want immigrants, only asylum seekers, so bollocks to her about the "politics of immigration".

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:21

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

They've changed the text of the EU referendum question from "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? Yes/No" to "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Remain/Leave", reflecting the idea of status quo and positivity bias in the original question. It will be interesting to see what message changes this produces.

Farage continues to believe that he should lead the Leave campaign, and that it should mostly be about immigration. He can gently caress off.

Although honestly both sides can, the Yes/Remain side are talking about "Britain's world influence" and "the City's biggest companies" and the No/Leave side are talking about "the Immigrants" and "loopy human rights laws". Neither seems to be making points about things that I would like to happen. Are there any good for/against campaigns that aren't just Capitalists vs. Nationalists?

Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:29

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Oberleutnant posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/01/david-cameron-nick-clegg-snobbish-arrogant-emails-to-hillary-clinton

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_August_Web/IPS-0128/DOC_0C05777221/C05777221.pdf

lmao

That's just a copy/paste of an article in the Independent written by Joe Stiglitz, though.

I mean yeah Osborne transparently wants to cut for its own sake, but I don't think those are Blumenthal's words.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:31

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

Guavanaut posted:

They've changed the text of the EU referendum question from "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union? Yes/No" to "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Remain/Leave", reflecting the idea of status quo and positivity bias in the original question. It will be interesting to see what message changes this produces.

Farage continues to believe that he should lead the Leave campaign, and that it should mostly be about immigration. He can gently caress off.

Although honestly both sides can, the Yes/Remain side are talking about "Britain's world influence" and "the City's biggest companies" and the No/Leave side are talking about "the Immigrants" and "loopy human rights laws". Neither seems to be making points about things that I would like to happen. Are there any good for/against campaigns that aren't just Capitalists vs. Nationalists?

Science funding is a big one for me. The EU funds a huge amount of the UK's scientific research, and would stop doing so to a significant if not complete extent if we left.

The other big one is 'we will inevitably still have to trade with the EU; they're right next door. So we'd be loving batshit to lose our chance at influencing the treaties and rules surrounding that trade'.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:34

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

Zephro posted:

That's just a copy/paste of an article in the Independent written by Joe Stiglitz, though.

I mean yeah Osborne transparently wants to cut for its own sake, but I don't think those are Blumenthal's words.

yes, i know.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:35

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Prince John posted:

It's brilliant.
It could be written in UKMT.

On a more serious note, does anyone have practical experience with the "time off to find alternative employment" part of the redundancy rules?

The guidance says

So I'm reading that as saying "as long as you're not job searching/training for more than 2/5 days a week during your notice period, you'll continue to be paid a wage for those 2 days you're not in the office." Is that how it works in practice? Or is it "you can have 2 days off, in total, to look for jobs, no matter how long your notice period is"? Has anyone successfully taken advantage of this?

I'm reading it as the first interpretation.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:38

kapparomeo: Apr 19, 2011; Some say his extreme-right links are clearly known, even in the fascist capitalist imperialist Murdochist press...

thespaceinvader posted:

Science funding is a big one for me. The EU funds a huge amount of the UK's scientific research, and would stop doing so to a significant if not complete extent if we left.

As we're net contributors to the EU budget though - to the tune of billions, even after the rebate - any regional development funding that we receive is just us getting a fraction of our own money back. EU funding not a secure way to defend the EU because you can easily ask why instead of playing pass-the-parcel with it why we don't just spend that money (and more) ourselves.

kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 13:38

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

Like our current government WOULD though. Leaving the EU would inevitably be seen as a brilliant way to fund the defecit reduction they still can't afford despite cutting basically everything.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:03

Prince John: Jun 20, 2006; Oh, poppycock! Female bandits?

Lord of the Llamas posted:

I'm reading it as the first interpretation.

So was I, until I looked more closely at the example:

"You work 5 days a week and you take 4 days off in total during the whole notice period - your employer only has to pay you for the first 2 days."

If the first interpretation is the right one, then you could have taken 4 days off in total, as long as there was no more than two days in any given week. The more pessimistic interpretation seems to match up with this random news article I found:

quote:

An employee is entitled to be paid their normal wage for the work they do during the redundancy notice period. If the employee is entitled to paid time off and they take time off to find work, then they are entitled to be paid their normal hourly rate up to a maximum amount. The maximum amount under the legislation is two fifths (40%) of the employee's normal weekly wage. This is the maximum amount that can be paid during the redundancy notice period while the employee is taking time off work. This means that provided an employee does not take off more than two fifths of their normal weekly working hours over the whole of the notice period, they will not lose any pay. For example, an employee works 40 hours per week. She has a four-week notice period. Two fifths of her weekly hours is 16 hours, so provided she does not take more than 16 hours off to look for work over the four week notice period, she will be paid her normal wage.

Would still be very interested to hear people's practical experience with this, whether they had to fight for it and anything else of relevance.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:06

Lord of the Llamas: Jul 9, 2002; EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

Prince John posted:

So was I, until I looked more closely at the example:

"You work 5 days a week and you take 4 days off in total during the whole notice period - your employer only has to pay you for the first 2 days."

If the first interpretation is the right one, then you could have taken 4 days off in total, as long as there was no more than two days in any given week. The more pessimistic interpretation seems to match up with this random news article I found:

Would still be very interested to hear people's practical experience with this, whether they had to fight for it and anything else of relevance.

Hmm yes. They could be more clear!

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:11

MrL_JaKiri: Sep 23, 2003; A bracing glass of carrot juice!

It is badly written, but it's 40% of working week off total (ie ie you only work 3 days, you get 1 and a bit days, not 2)

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:13

Noxville: Dec 7, 2003

kapparomeo posted:

As we're net contributors to the EU budget though - to the tune of billions, even after the rebate - any regional development funding that we receive is just us getting a fraction of our own money back. EU funding not a secure way to defend the EU because you can easily ask why instead of playing pass-the-parcel with it why we don't just spend that money (and more) ourselves.

It's probably because the rich countries benefit disproprtionately from the freedom of movement of Labour. We take all their best and brightest and boost our productivity as a result.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:20

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Noxville posted:

It's probably because the rich countries benefit disproprtionately from the freedom of movement of Labour. We take all their best and brightest and boost our productivity as a result.

Isn't British productivity abysmal compared to France and Germany etc. though?

(And if it wasn't, what good is boosted productivity if most of the spoils stay in the top decile?)

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:30

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Noxville posted:

It's probably because the rich countries benefit disproprtionately from the freedom of movement of Labour. We take all their best and brightest and boost our productivity as a result.

Yeah, this was covered in the Europe thread; the majority of,EU states currently floundering have suffered immense brain drain due to students studying in their native country, then immediately eloping to more developed ones. While the EU is definitely a shaky idea becoming worse with time, the UK does benefit from it in ways not made immediately clear with blunt finance.

This will probably diminish with time as UK becomes far too expensive for students, and budget cuts transform the nation into a developing hellhole anyways.

Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:33

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

German productivity was (is?) the envy of the world. They also had (have?) extremely powerful unions. I don't know how things have fared in Germany in the last few years, though.
The usual line of reasoning you see for that is that with poor labour rights labour is dirt loving cheap so even if the productivity is bad it's still profitable. When labour is strong capital invests in automation or other labour-saving to limit costs, which tends to increase productivity but produces oscillations in employment as people are thrown out of work by automation and then rehired as the automation makes expansion possible, etc, etc...

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:39

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Oberleutnant posted:

The usual line of reasoning you see for that is that with poor labour rights labour is dirt loving cheap so even if the productivity is bad it's still profitable. When labour is strong capital invests in automation or other labour-saving to limit costs, which tends to increase productivity but produces oscillations in employment as people are thrown out of work by automation and then rehired as the automation makes expansion possible, etc, etc...

In conclusion,

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:48

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

Guavanaut posted:

In conclusion,

same

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:48

awesome-express: Dec 30, 2008

Pantsuit posted:

I never got a paper ballot, just voted online.

same

only I voted for Yvette, pls don't hang me

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:53

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

awesome-express posted:

only I voted for Yvette, pls don't hang me

Just put your name on this list for .. ah .. future reference.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 14:57

Borrovan: Aug 15, 2013; IT IS ME.
🧑‍💼
I AM THERESA MAY

jax posted:

If it's a criminal/court fine the bailifs can legally break in. I would contact the court and citizens advice.

I'm fairly sure this isn't true. Noncompliance with a court order is a criminal offence, but so is breaking and entering (also theft, and burglary). Don't take my word, or anyone else's word in this thread on it though. I'm also not sure how helpful the CAB could be as I worked at one for years and never encountered anything like that in any of our materials, but it's still a good port of call if you can't afford/be bothered with a lawyer, as your local Bureau might well be better connected/more savvy with this kind of thing than mine was.

s40(1) Administration of Justice Act 1970 (emphasis added) posted:

A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, ...

The debt in this case is neither claimed from the other nor due under a contract so this wouldn't apply (still, you can pull it out in an argument, the bailiffs probably don't know that). What you're looking for is:

s1(1) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 posted:

A person must not pursue a course of conduct�
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

I've encountered this applied successfully against bailiffs by the actual debtor; in your case, it's a no-brainer. Harassment is both a tort and a criminal offence - but, to enforce it, you'd need to either lawyer up or persuade the police that maybe they should do actual policing, which is a mean feat in either case. What a world we would live in if people without piles of money to play around with could actually enforce their basic legal rights. :smith:

:smith:

I'd suggest contacting both the bailiffs and the Court in question, and sending a whole bunch of evidence (tenancy agreements, household bills, whatever you've got) to demonstrate that he isn't there, politely asking them to call the dogs off, and maybe mentioning in passing that it constitutes criminal harassment and, courts being public bodies, a disproportionate interference with your rights under Article 8, Article 1 to Schedule 1, and maybe Article 5 of the ECHR.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 15:11

floofyscorp: Feb 12, 2007

Hi UKMT - tangentially related to brother-debtor-chat, I found out this time last year that I have a CCJ on my record. Have a story, I need to grumble.

Several years ago, shortly before embarking on my ~dream career~, I worked at the DWP in Middlesbrough for about three weeks. When I quit midway through the training period, my supervisor suggested she could keep me on the payroll for the remaining three weeks, to 'help with the cost of moving' to my new job. I was pretty sceptical of this plan, but she assured me she did this all the time and it would be fine, so I shrugged and let her pay me(yes I realise this was stupid of me but ???why did she do this???), never went in that miserable building again, and moved to Cambridge a few days later. My then-boyfriend was still living in the house we'd shared, so if I got any letters he promised to forward them on. All good.

A few months into the new job, I got a phone call from some bailiffs who wanted to break into my boyfriend's house on account of the �300 I now apparently owed the DWP. I was extremely cofused as this was the first I'd heard about it and didn't have �300 immediately to hand, so after they explained the overpayment business(and I cursed that DWP supervisor's name thoroughly) I agreed to pay it off in monthly instalments(mistake number three apparently), then had a very strained conversation with boyfriend regarding the angry letters and court invitation he had neglected to tell me anything about and eventually binned.

I paid off the debt, I eventually broke up with boyfriend(four years later than I should have, hindsight is 20/20 etc), figured that was all in the past. Then last year, I was applying for a tenancy with new boyfriend. Since these days I'm a freelancer with unreliable income, I was concerned about my credit check but his salary would fairly easily cover the rent by itself, so we assumed it would be fine. The lettings agency disagreed, which was the first time I'd ever heard the term 'CCJ', and I had to scramble for a guarantor for the lease(which was difficult, since my parents are in Ireland and therefore ineligible to be guarantors, but luckily a wonderful friend stepped in to save the day) - anyway, long story short is I'm told CCJs have an expiry date but as I have no idea when mine was issued nor indeed any kind of documentation regarding the whole matter I'm trying to figure out when it won't be a problem anymore since I am told having a CCJ makes things like getting a mortgage even more of an immense hassle. Getting a steady job would help with the credit problem, but welp.

I found this slightly dodgy-looking website, which says I have to pay them to look it up, but I'm not sure what section I need to search in or what address to use - my current address? The one I was living in at the time? Now I'm just confused and grumpy about my ex all over again.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 15:16

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

CAB might be a sensible stop for that. Otherwise maybe the copshop might know if it's part of your (not quite) criminal record?

I also can't quite imagine any place on earth more hellish than the Middlesbrough DWP so well done on not being dead following your experience.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 15:24

Pork Pie Hat: Apr 27, 2011

floofyscorp posted:

Hi UKMT - tangentially related to brother-debtor-chat, I found out this time last year that I have a CCJ on my record. Have a story, I need to grumble.

Several years ago, shortly before embarking on my ~dream career~, I worked at the DWP in Middlesbrough for about three weeks. When I quit midway through the training period, my supervisor suggested she could keep me on the payroll for the remaining three weeks, to 'help with the cost of moving' to my new job. I was pretty sceptical of this plan, but she assured me she did this all the time and it would be fine, so I shrugged and let her pay me(yes I realise this was stupid of me but ???why did she do this???), never went in that miserable building again, and moved to Cambridge a few days later. My then-boyfriend was still living in the house we'd shared, so if I got any letters he promised to forward them on. All good.

A few months into the new job, I got a phone call from some bailiffs who wanted to break into my boyfriend's house on account of the �300 I now apparently owed the DWP. I was extremely cofused as this was the first I'd heard about it and didn't have �300 immediately to hand, so after they explained the overpayment business(and I cursed that DWP supervisor's name thoroughly) I agreed to pay it off in monthly instalments(mistake number three apparently), then had a very strained conversation with boyfriend regarding the angry letters and court invitation he had neglected to tell me anything about and eventually binned.

I paid off the debt, I eventually broke up with boyfriend(four years later than I should have, hindsight is 20/20 etc), figured that was all in the past. Then last year, I was applying for a tenancy with new boyfriend. Since these days I'm a freelancer with unreliable income, I was concerned about my credit check but his salary would fairly easily cover the rent by itself, so we assumed it would be fine. The lettings agency disagreed, which was the first time I'd ever heard the term 'CCJ', and I had to scramble for a guarantor for the lease(which was difficult, since my parents are in Ireland and therefore ineligible to be guarantors, but luckily a wonderful friend stepped in to save the day) - anyway, long story short is I'm told CCJs have an expiry date but as I have no idea when mine was issued nor indeed any kind of documentation regarding the whole matter I'm trying to figure out when it won't be a problem anymore since I am told having a CCJ makes things like getting a mortgage even more of an immense hassle. Getting a steady job would help with the credit problem, but welp.

I found this slightly dodgy-looking website, which says I have to pay them to look it up, but I'm not sure what section I need to search in or what address to use - my current address? The one I was living in at the time? Now I'm just confused and grumpy about my ex all over again.

Have a look at this link if you haven't already. It might have information you find useful, though the website it links to to search the register is the same as the one you linked.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 15:45

Rude Dude With Tude: Apr 19, 2007; Your President approves this text.

"Jeremy Corbyn ate my homework and also it's totally his fault nobody uses the ArabFly Dangleway" - Alexander Boris "BOZA LEGERND" de Pfeffel Johnson

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/09/01/boris-johnson-blames-failure-to-bring-in-night-tube-on-jerem

politics.fart posted:

Boris Johnson blames failure to bring in night Tube on Jeremy Corbyn

Boris Johnson's failure to fulfil his promise to bring in a 24-hour tube system is due to "Corbynmania" he claimed today.

The London mayor had previously promised Londoners would be able to travel through the night on parts of the Tube at weekends from the start of this month, despite failing to first get the agreement of Tube workers.

He today blamed his ongoing failure on the rise of Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn.

"The union leadership has used this as an opportunity to make a political point," he told LBC.

"What is really happening is the union leadership, particularly the RMT, feel that the country is being gripped by a sort of Corbynmania. They feel that everybody is going to the left and this is an opportunity to make a point to the awful Tory government that they don't accept trade union reform."

Johnson insisted that the Tube would still move towards 24-hour opening "this autumn" but refused to give a precise date or even to confirm that it would happen before the start of December.

He also ruled out meeting with union leaders to negotiate a deal to prevent further strikes on the Tube.

The RMT plans to launch two further strikes on the 8th and 10th September unless a new agreement can be reached on rosters and the pay and conditions of night workers.

Bloody unions they only exist because of the Labour Party. :argh:

:argh:

oh wait hang on

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:20

ukle: Nov 28, 2005

Another hustings is going on at the moment, if your bored and want something on in the background while you work -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=996Lnep7Hfk

Its same as all the others, everyone versus Corbyn.

edit: And its finished.

ukle fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Sep 1, 2015

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:23

Coohoolin: Aug 5, 2012; Oor Coohoolie.

Is it just me or has Burnham's accent gotten less Scouse and more posh?

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:24

communism bitch: Apr 24, 2009

Coohoolin posted:

Is it just me or has Burnham's accent gotten less Scouse and more posh?

Like his policies and opinions, I'm sure it changes radically depending on the audience he wants to appeal to at any given moment.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

de Pfeffel

I'd loving forgotten about this lol

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:26

School Nickname: Apr 23, 2010; *fffffff-fffaaaaaaarrrtt*

ukle posted:

Another hustings is going on at the moment, if your bored and want something on in the background while you work -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=996Lnep7Hfk

Its same as all the others, everyone versus Corbyn.

edit: And its finished.

Cooper was such a condescending poo poo. Literally shivered when Burnham opened his mouth. Uncanny Valley alarms bells ringing.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:31

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Autonomous Monster posted:

Might be worth putting in the OP

That number is being hammered so much you can't actually get to it, haha.

Luckily I took the advice of others and made a last-ditch search through my inbox to find it had snuck in after all.

Corbyn #1, everyone else gets gently caress-all. Roll on ~~9/11~~ 9/12 and the announcement of 9/14.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:46

KOGAHAZAN!!: Apr 29, 2013; a miserable failure as a person

an incredible success as a magical murder spider

ukle posted:

Its same as all the others, everyone versus Corbyn.

I keep forgetting Corbyn hasn't won yet. Have we really still got a week and a half to go?

# ? Sep 1, 2015 16:55

breadshaped: Apr 1, 2010; Soiled Meat

I don't really know much about these other labour candidates beside Corbyn but they seem reasonable enough centre-leftists beside Liz Kendall. If you went by this thread I was expecting to find every non-Jeremy somewhere right of Hitler.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 17:19

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

A lot of people seem like reasonable enough centre-leftists beside Liz Kendall. :haw:

:haw:

# ? Sep 1, 2015 17:22

Phoon: Apr 23, 2010

Bedshaped posted:

I don't really know much about these other labour candidates beside Corbyn but they seem reasonable enough centre-leftists beside Liz Kendall. If you went by this thread I was expecting to find every non-Jeremy somewhere right of Hitler.

They were much worse at the beginning of the contest before they realised the labour membership are left wing and like left wing things

# ? Sep 1, 2015 17:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 03:54

Vitamin P: Nov 19, 2013; Can't post for 5 days!

Autonomous Monster posted:

I keep forgetting Corbyn hasn't won yet. Have we really still got a week and a half to go?

I blame Osborne, he's jumped the gun on the anti-Corbyn campaign.

I'm so intrigued what the Tories will have lined up for his first month. They've had time to prepare and have a free rein to put stuff on the docket, it's going to be brutal.

# ? Sep 1, 2015 17:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT September 2015: David Cameron Fucked a Dead Pig

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS