2015 Election

[sonofsanta]

UKIP chairman Steve Crowther said in a statement: "As promised Nigel Farage tendered his official resignation as leader of UKIP to the NEC. This offer was unanimously rejected by the NEC members who produced overwhelming evidence that the UKIP membership did not want Nigel to go.

 

"He has therefore been persuaded by the NEC to withdraw his resignation and remains leader of UKIP," the chairman added.

 

Does this mean people will finally stop thinking he's "different from the rest of 'em and not part of the establishment", as he likes to sell himself? 'Cos he's just proven himself as much of a liar as any other politician. They probably won't, but a man can dream.

[pcstru]

Police have operated this policy for some time also.

Err, yes. Various public and private employers have effectively acted against the law.

 

Not just the BNP as well, a number of councils operate policies that forbid membership of any party. Politically Restricted Positions.

That is an interesting special case. There are cases where an employer can justify discrimination in employment. An example might be a counsellor for abused women - where the employer specifically advertises for a woman.

 

Let's say this joker had asked his employees to identify themselves if they were Tories and fired them? Would that be OK?

[CAM]

No because a cafe isn't public sector so PRP doesn't apply. If it was a council office and a politically restricted position, then dismissal is backed up by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

 

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Guidance-political-restriction.pdf

[pcstru]

No because a cafe isn't public sector so PRP doesn't apply. If it was a council office and a politically restricted position, then dismissal is backed up by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

 

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Guidance-political-restriction.pdf

I think you are mistaken that that would stop you being a member of a political party. It does restrict what you can do in terms of political activity but it does not stop you simply being a member of a party.

[witch]

My dad was high up in the civil service and he wasn't allowed to be a member of a political party or state any political views at all.

The squeezy Margaret Thatcher head he used to throw across the room had to stay at home

[pcstru]

My dad was high up in the civil service and he wasn't allowed to be a member of a political party or state any political views at all.

I would be interested in the exact legislation which bans anyone from being a member of a political party. It is not really for me to prove it does not exist.

 

There is a question of what it means to "state" a political view. I can't think of a better "statement of a political view" than casting a vote. No one is banned from voting, no matter what job they hold.

[SpuffMonkey]

Yes, really. See Redfearn v. The United Kingdom. There is a difference between holding a political view and acting on those views in a way that is against the current law.

 

Imagine a cartel of employers turned round and said to their employees - "we will fire you if you aren't a paid up member of the X Party".

 

You don't have to imagine it

 

Construction industry workers blacklisted for 20 years - BBC News

[witch]

I would be interested in the exact legislation which bans anyone from being a member of a political party. It is not really for me to prove it does not exist.

 

There is a question of what it means to "state" a political view. I can't think of a better "statement of a political view" than casting a vote. No one is banned from voting, no matter what job they hold.

 

It may be that he could not be active in a party or state that he was a member, I don't know.

He was not allowed to state a political view at work. He held some pretty senior positions - Head civil servant for the Dept of Environment and pretty high up in the then Central Office of Information. He wrote a few speeches for people too - eg Tony Crossland

[tmcd35]

Fountain of all miss-knowledge: Her Majesty's Civil Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (citation: Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law (Pearson, 2003), p.279-80)

 

Like all servants of the Crown, civil servants are legally barred from standing for election as Members of Parliament or any other political office.[27] Also, under regulations first adopted in 1954 and revised in 1984, members of the Senior Civil Service (the top management grades) are barred from holding office in a political party or publicly expressing controversial political viewpoints, while less senior civil servants at an intermediate (managerial) level must generally seek permission to participate in political activities. The most junior civil servants are permitted to participate in political activities, but must be politically neutral in the exercise of their duties.

 

Seems quite sensible to me. You wouldn't want a Labour Secretary of State having to fight with Conservative civil servants (or visa-versa) to enact policy voted on by the government/parliament, would you?

[tmcd35]

Not sure if it's the best clip, but best I can find quickly on YouTube. The discussion on civil servants and political opinion reminded me of Sir Humphrey:

 

[LeMarchand]

Had to do some work yesterday afternoon! (Setting up MinecraftEDU a bit more complex than the tutorial made it look).

 

Minimum Wage: If it really does seriously disadvantage startups/small businesses, then an easy solution would be tax breaks. However, the idea of supporting the "little guy" is something politicians only pay lip service to.

 

"The" sign: He wasn't refusing to serve Tory supporters, just asking them to put their money where their mouths/votes were.

[Garacesh]

However, the idea of supporting the "little guy" is something politicians only pay lip service to.

Very much so, something I personally am sick of. If politicians want this economy to grow, there are only two days of doing that: Large corporations expand further (which won't actually help, since they pay no flaming tax anyway) and for newcomers into the market to startup and (hopefully) become successful businesses (and hopefully don't start tax dodging themselves..)

 

With regards to the 'barred from political activity' scenario, makes perfect sense to me.. Conflict of interest and all?

[pcstru]

Seems quite sensible to me. You wouldn't want a Labour Secretary of State having to fight with Conservative civil servants (or visa-versa) to enact policy voted on by the government/parliament, would you?

I agree it is sensible. I still see nothing that bars anyone from simply being a member of a political party, as has been claimed.

[mikeprice]

I used to know someone who was high up in the local council admin. He acted as returning officer for the local area many times and was responsible for supervising the count etc.

 

I can quite understand why he would not be able to be a member of a political party. In fact before elections he would deliberately walk away in the sailing club if people started talking about the election as he couldn't afford to be seen as having an opinion

[witch]

I agree it is sensible. I still see nothing that bars anyone from simply being a member of a political party, as has been claimed.

 

Yes, I think I did agree with that - my dad used to say that he wasn't allowed to be a member as a top civil servant but this may well have been shorthand for "they wouldn't like it and I have to keep quiet about my Liberal leanings"

 

As for the "Yes Minister" clip - my dad always said this was very accurate!

[GrumbleDook]

Yes, I think I did agree with that - my dad used to say that he wasn't allowed to be a member as a top civil servant but this may well have been shorthand for "they wouldn't like it and I have to keep quiet about my Liberal leanings"

 

As for the "Yes Minister" clip - my dad always said this was very accurate!

 

The way it is usually discussed, the further up the chain you go in the Civil Service, is that the high the rung in the ladder the more open you are for actions to be questioned, pressure to be put on you by any party your are member or any group that you may be involved in that wants to use you as a lobbying point. This has been, and still is, routinely broken for some areas (including perks rounds the Arts) but it is a heck of a lot more transparent than it used to be.

 

Not being involved with any groups is a way of protecting you, your position and the people you serve within the Civil Service.

[zag]

Benefits street was as brilliant as ever last night for its second series.

 

Benefits Street - Channel 4

 

How anyone can think our benefit system isnt broken after watching this is beyond me. Its happening all over the UK.

 

Handouts never work... Reward the people who want, Punish the people who wont. Thats my belief.

[witch]

Benefits street was as brilliant as ever last night for its second series.

 

Benefits Street - Channel 4

 

How anyone can think our benefit system isnt broken after watching this is beyond me. Its happening all over the UK.

 

Handouts never work... Reward the people who want, Punish the people who wont. Thats my belief.

 

It was one street. Yes, I am sure there are lots of them around the country but it still doesn't add up to enormous benefit fraud. Also it is very easy to put a slant on something by the film company. There may be perfectly decent working people in that street but you probably will never see them.

 

Interesting article here: http://theknowledgeplymouth.co.uk/benefits-street-a-true-depiction/

Edited May 12, 2015 by witch

[sparkeh]

Benefits street was as brilliant as ever last night for its second series.

 

Benefits Street - Channel 4

 

How anyone can think our benefit system isnt broken after watching this is beyond me. Its happening all over the UK.

 

Handouts never work... Reward the people who want, Punish the people who wont. Thats my belief.

I think its because most rational people can distinguish between a sensationalist show designed to provoke reaction and the real life issues.

Sadly this feeds into the benefit narrative that enables the Government to slash the welfare bill and disadvantage many real people (rather than TV bogeymen) who depend on it.

[witch]

I think its because most rational people can distinguish between a sensationalist show designed to provoke reaction and the real life issues.

.

Plainly not, given what has just happened, voting-wise

[sparkeh]

Plainly not, given what has just happened, voting-wise

I really must stop trying to see the best in people

[LosOjos]

Benefits street was as brilliant as ever last night for its second series.

 

Benefits Street - Channel 4

 

How anyone can think our benefit system isnt broken after watching this is beyond me. Its happening all over the UK.

 

Handouts never work... Reward the people who want, Punish the people who wont. Thats my belief.

 

Even official estimates put benefit fraud at 0.7% (£1.2bn). In fact, more money is lost through administrative error at 1.3% (£2.2bn): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

 

The problem with "the benefits system" is that a tiny percentage of fraudulent JSA claimants are peddled as "the problem with the benefits system", paving the way for the government to make cuts left right and centre to a system that is (soon to be 'was'), by all standards, one of the best in the world.

 

The benefits system is much more than JSA alone, and fraud makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of payments made. Do yourself a favour and instead of lapping up the media witch hunt, go and read the official statistics put out by the government.

[sted]

I really must stop trying to see the best in people

 

en masse people suck. But what do you expect as far as I could tell all the main parties were strong on other party will do this bad thing rather than we will do this good thing because unfortunately negative advertising works same as good news isn't interesting bad news sells advertising

[LosOjos]

Plainly not, given what has just happened, voting-wise

 

It doesn't help that we have a voting system which means that the party with the "majority" vote [read: most seats] actually only secured 36.9% of the total votes.

 

Election 2015 - BBC News

 

Oh, and those votes accounted for 66% of the country, so actually only about 24% of the population actually voted them in.

Edited May 12, 2015 by LosOjos

[localzuk]

The annoying one today was the Tory on Radio 2 discussing the welfare state. He stated that the welfare state costs the country £250bn per year, including pensions.

 

Why include pensions? They aren't welfare. They're paid into by the people who collect them. Its like that document that the Tories sent out last year with a breakdown of where your taxes went - they included public sector pensions in the welfare segment!!

 

This is why the Tories won. They are masters of manipulation, and have plenty of papers in their pocket who will spread their bull**** lies.