• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gutter Boy said:
No - it's EU tendering rules, under their competition laws.

All the public sector and other industries which receive public funds have to endure this ridiculous system

I'm not saying the Tories don't love a good PFI either though
Click to expand...
What is your qualification for being well versed on civil service operational requirements?
 
galeforce said:
Where I draw the line, Obama saying “vote for me I intend to make things better by A, B & C” is fine, a Russian data centre spamming people with “don’t vote for Hilary she rapes and eats babies in the basement of a pizza parlour” isn’t.
Click to expand...
I think a promise one knows cannot be kept is no better than a lie.

Obama is either a liar (not singling him out, all politicians are) or a macaron. I don't think he's the latter.
 
EU procurement rules are rather less constraining than people think. You only have to accept MVP or best value or lowest bid if that's how you've gone to market. There's nothing to stop you from contracting by competitive dialogue or having scores and weightings that reward local investment. Or you could simply set up a framework, onto which both De la Rue and the French guys could have bid, and then allocate work in call-off competitions based on whatever rules you fancy.

De La Rue lost. And they are getting all Liverpudlian about it.
 
glasgowspur said:
Fine, but if you want question some ones qualification for making a statement then it would be good to know what yours are.
Click to expand...
No. Challenging a statement is to put the onus on the statement maker to back up their position, otherwise you get a situation where only statements can be challenged if the challenger knows differently. Which is ludicrous.
Make a statement - make sure it's sound. Otherwise we get propaganda.

Now, back to the point - Tory policy is the issue here, not EU Legislation. Ergo there is little reason to Brexit will change this (a possible economic upswing may do so. But Tory policy suggests business would benefit, not service provision). Ergo, Brexiters are getting what they voted for.
 
Gutter Boy said:
No - it's EU tendering rules, under their competition laws.

All the public sector and other industries which receive public funds have to endure this ridiculous system

I'm not saying the Tories don't love a good PFI either though
Click to expand...

I was going to answer this and qualify it with the fact that I actually bid for public tenders.

But it seems loads of people have beat me to it.

As they have said the organisation issuing the tender decides on the weighting.

So why did you imply otherwise?
 
monkeybarry said:
Now, back to the point - Tory policy is the issue here, not EU Legislation. Ergo there is little reason to Brexit will change this (a possible economic upswing may do so. But Tory policy suggests business would benefit, not service provision). Ergo, Brexiters are getting what they voted for.
Click to expand...

This sums up the Brexit vote for me.
 
monkeybarry said:
No. Challenging a statement is to put the onus on the statement maker to back up their position, otherwise you get a situation where only statements can be challenged if the challenger knows differently. Which is ludicrous.
Make a statement - make sure it's sound. Otherwise we get propaganda.

Now, back to the point - Tory policy is the issue here, not EU Legislation. Ergo there is little reason to Brexit will change this (a possible economic upswing may do so. But Tory policy suggests business would benefit, not service provision). Ergo, Brexiters are getting what they voted for.
Click to expand...

Well we don't know that you are qualified to make challenge unless you tell us. You have a stronger argument if you would have explained your position, then asked what his is.
It gives us reading it a background upon which to judge the point. Without that two people saying goodbye what they want.
 
monkeybarry said:
No. Challenging a statement is to put the onus on the statement maker to back up their position, otherwise you get a situation where only statements can be challenged if the challenger knows differently. Which is ludicrous.
Make a statement - make sure it's sound. Otherwise we get propaganda.

Now, back to the point - Tory policy is the issue here, not EU Legislation. Ergo there is little reason to Brexit will change this (a possible economic upswing may do so. But Tory policy suggests business would benefit, not service provision). Ergo, Brexiters are getting what they voted for.
Click to expand...

There will be a lot of scrabbling for excuses after Brexit when the EU blame catch all has been removed.
 
monkeybarry said:
for me too. We had an opportunity at the GE to shape Brexit and chose Tory Brexit.
Hope people don't like job security.
brick version of America here we come
Click to expand...

The 2022 election will be key for me instead.

In 2017 there was too much concern that Chuka Umunna and co would wrestle control from the Labour Brexiteers like Corbyn and McDonnell, and there'd be a betrayal.

Let the Tories fight the war, then take control of the peace (much like 1945)
 
glasgowspur said:
Well we don't know that you are qualified to make challenge unless you tell us. You have a stronger argument if you would have explained your position, then asked what his is.
It gives us reading it a background upon which to judge the point. Without that two people saying goodbye what they want.
Click to expand...
I was challenging a statement, not giving an immediate counter argument.
Asking what qualifies someone to make a statement is a perfectly reasonable position, irrespective of any other factors.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The 2022 election will be key for me instead.

In 2017 there was too much concern that Chuka Umunna and co would wrestle control from the Labour Brexiteers like Corbyn and McDonnell, and there'd be a betrayal.

Let the Tories fight the war, then take control of the peace (much like 1945)
Click to expand...
The politics on the left is too fractured to gain substantial votes. Labour will need to move a little towards the centre from where they are.
The Tories have easily made themselves unvoteable (is that a word?!) for - but are Labour worth the vote?
 
monkeybarry said:
The politics on the left is too fractured to gain substantial votes. Labour will need to move a little towards the centre from where they are.
The Tories have easily made themselves unvoteable (is that a word?!) for - but are Labour worth the vote?
Click to expand...

It will be more than time for a change. Most governments struggle if they get to a third term. I don't think Labour need to do much, other than wait and not screw-up. The deselections will help them gain coherence

There's a radical feeling in the air. A sickness of the consequences of neo-liberalism and globalisation. I do think a majority will vote for a more protectionist/fairly anti-capitalist manifesto next time. Renationalisation and abolishing PFI are already highly popular
 
monkeybarry said:
The politics on the left is too fractured to gain substantial votes. Labour will need to move a little towards the centre from where they are.
The Tories have easily made themselves unvoteable (is that a word?!) for - but are Labour worth the vote?
Click to expand...

One could very easily level precisely the same criticism at a Labour party with Corbyn & McDonnell up top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back