UK General Election 2017

[Nearly Sane]

What were we supposed to draw from this?

That the vicar's daughter is content to appear to support homophobia

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That the vicar's daughter is content to appear to support homophobia

Yes but this is the great test for Conservative gays isn't it......... as well as any Conservative who holds other positions which don't chime with a self centred social Darwinian regressive Conservatism....do they vote to suit their wallets or their sexuality?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but this is the great test for Conservative gays isn't it......... as well as any Conservative who holds other positions which don't chime with a self centred social Darwinian regressive Conservatism....do they vote to suit their wallets or their sexuality?

So the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who thinks that what you call a chocolate egg hunt is more significant than selling arms to the Saudiis to murder people are social Darwinists? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who thinks that what you call a chocolate egg hunt is more significant than selling arms to the Saudiis to murder people are social Darwinists?

What the fuck are you on about?

[Nearly Sane]

What the fuck are you on about?

You used the term social Darwinists to cover a discussion about the homophobic Jesus House and May, a vicar's daughter and Christian who in a visit to Saudi Arabia to sell them arms to murder people in Yemen took time out to denounce a chocolate egg hunt not being referred to as an Easter egg hunt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You used the term social Darwinists to cover a discussion about the homophobic Jesus House and May, a vicar's daughter and Christian who in a visit to Saudi Arabia to sell them arms to murder people in Yemen took time out to denounce a chocolate egg hunt not being referred to as an Easter egg hunt.

My point is
a) There are Conservative gays
b) Some will vote according to their adherence to hard tory values, which are IMHO social Darwinian
c) Some may be put off by Theresa May's connections with a church you have said is homophobic.
d) Some gay people contemplating voting tory will not because of other issues.

[Nearly Sane]

My point is
a) There are Conservative gays
b) Some will vote according to their adherence to hard tory values, which are IMHO social Darwinian
c) Some may be put off by Theresa May's connections with a church you have said is homophobic.
d) Some gay people contemplating voting tory will not because of other issues.

So you think comparing homosexuality to bestiality isn't homophobic, and that the Christian who is the vicar's daughter who leads the Tories is somehow divorced from hard Tory values, and that this vicar's daughter Christian selling arms to the Saudis to murder people while getting upset about what a chocolate egg is called in it not using a 'Christian' enough title is a good time to mention social Darwinism? In which case surely they are the social Darwinists you are talking about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you think comparing homosexuality to bestiality isn't homophobic, and that the Christian who is the vicar's daughter who leads the Tories is somehow divorced from hard Tory values, and that this vicar's daughter Christian selling arms to the Saudis to murder people while getting upset about what a chocolate egg is called in it not using a 'Christian' enough title is a good time to mention social Darwinism? In which case surely they are the social Darwinists you are talking about?

You can be homophobic without being social Darwinian, or sell arms to anybody or get upset about what to call easter eggs...without being Social Darwinian. Mentioning them is a non sequitur.
A Gay person who votes for the Conservatives is social Darwinian by definition...as of course, is a homophobic who votes Conservative.....or an Easter eggist etc, etc

[Nearly Sane]

You can be homophobic without being social Darwinian, or sell arms to anybody or get upset about what to call easter eggs...without being Social Darwinian. Mentioning them is a non sequitur.
A Gay person who votes for the Conservatives is social Darwinian by definition...as of course, is a homophobic who votes Conservative.....or an Easter eggist etc, etc

You were the one mentioning social Darwinian in a discussion about the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who leads the Tory party. You seem now to be accusing yourself of making a non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You were the one mentioning social Darwinian in a discussion about the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who leads the Tory party. You seem now to be accusing yourself of making a non sequitur.

No, I'm saying your examples of what constitutes social Darwinism are inferior to mine.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I'm saying your examples of what constitutes social Darwinism are inferior to mine.

I wasn't offering examples of social Darwinism, it was you that introduced that into a discussion of the Christian vicar's daughter who likes selling arms and visiting the Christian homophobic church so I assumed given you were talking about core hard Tory values the Christian Tory leader must be embodying these values.

[jakswan]

Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.

I presume it is because Corbyn can remain, which I think is destined to happen anyway. Assuming May gets in, civil war in Labour is next, listening to Liz Kendall on This Week a few episodes ago she was very carefully picking her words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you think comparing homosexuality to bestiality isn't homophobic

I haven't compared homosexuality to bestiality......The BBC to bestiality maybe...

[Nearly Sane]

I presume it is because Corbyn can remain, which I think is destined to happen anyway. Assuming May gets in civil war in Labour is next, listening to Liz Kendall on This Week a few episodes ago she was very carefully picking her words.

Sorry not sure what you mean by 'Assuming May gets in civil war' means here?

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't compared homosexuality to bestiality......The BBC to bestiality maybe...

I didn't say you had. But you implied that the Jesus House which does was only homophobic because I said so. I'm glad that you are now clarifying that the Christian organisation that the the Christian leader of the Tory party seemed to support are homophobic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say you had. But you implied that the Jesus House which does was only homophobic because I said so. I'm glad that you are now clarifying that the Christian organisation that the the Christian leader of the Tory party seemed to support are homophobic.

Nope.
My post merely questioned which way the Conservative gay vote was going to go and whether May appearing at this church would be a dealbreaker.

However I seem to recall you have had a singular view of homophobia and what constitutes it.....

[Nearly Sane]

Nope.
My post merely questioned which way the Conservative gay vote was going to go and whether May appearing at this church would be a dealbreaker.

No, to quote you 'a church you have said is homophobic'. So you imply the Christian Jesus House is only homophobic in my opinion and you think maybe not. And again I wasn't offering examples of social Darwinism that was your response to the Christian vicar's daughter leader of the Tory party appearing to give support to the Christian Jesus House that think that homosexuality is like bestiality.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope.
My post merely questioned which way the Conservative gay vote was going to go and whether May appearing at this church would be a dealbreaker.

However I seem to recall you have had a singular view of homophobia and what constitutes it.....

I see you have added a sentence about my opinion of homophobia here. What do you think is singular about it? Do you believe that thinking that  equating homosexuality with bestiality is homophobic is singular? Do you think that thinking the Christian Jesus House is homophobia is singular? Because that would be odd given the article I posted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you have added a sentence about my opinion of homophobia here. What do you think is singular about it? Do you believe that thinking that  equating homosexuality with bestiality is homophobic is singular? Do you think that thinking the Christian Jesus House is homophobia is singular? Because that would be odd given the article I posted.

The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?

[Rhiannon]

Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:

1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from

That said, I can't help laughing on this issue (or maybe crying) given that I part own a nursery which would have to deliver the 'free' child-care. And by free what that actually means is that the nursery receives a set rate of funding per hour from government (via local authorities), which is dependent on the nursery offering that place to parents free.

So the Tories have played this game too - in their 2015 manifesto they committed to providing 30 hours 'free' - currently it is only 15 hours. Did they cost this up - did they heck. This is to be rolled out in September this year, and therefore it is critical that nurseries know how much they will receive for each 'free' hour (which by the way is way less than they would otherwise charge) as this makes the difference between running a viable or non viable business.

Ever since the election in 2015 we have been trying to get clarity on the rate, so we can model and plan for its effect. The rate (and therefore the cost of the manifesto pledge) was only confirmed in late March this year - some 2 years after it was put in their manifesto.

Point being that it is easy to throw some ill thought out plan into a manifesto - but not only do you need to cost it, you also need to assess its impact on businesses and individuals who will be affected by its implementation.

Something similar happened to care homes, making many unprofitable and out of business, and arguably contributing to the current social care crisis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something similar happened to care homes, making many unprofitable and out of business, and arguably contributing to the current social care crisis.

I can't be the only one who finds the concept of if something is unprofitable it should be scrapped.
Apparently the development of antibiotics is supposed to be unprofitable and has largely ceased.....what fool thinking is that?

[Nearly Sane]

The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?

Not only do I not recall that, I have no idea what you mean.

[ProfessorDavey]

Something similar happened to care homes, making many unprofitable and out of business, and arguably contributing to the current social care crisis.

That's right and politicians tend not to think about it.

They focus on giving stuff to the electorate 'free', but fail to recognise that if you are going to do that via the private sector then those organisations have to remain viable, as they are businesses.

The key issue with nurseries (and probably care homes too, although that's not my are) is that they are tightly regulated with a required ratio of staff to children. Given that by far the greatest expense is staff costs, then there is pretty well no flexibility as you cannot become 'more efficient' by reducing costs, because you can't as that would mean increasing staff to children ratio which would be unlawful.

I gather with the increase in numbers of 'free hours' from 15 to 30 a week only about half of nurseries have signed up to provide it. If that continues the policy will fail as parents won't be able to access their 'free' entitlement in practice, rather than in theory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's right and politicians tend not to think about it.

They focus on giving stuff to the electorate 'free', but fail to recognise that if you are going to do that via the private sector then those organisations have to remain viable, as they are businesses.

The key issue with nurseries (and probably care homes too, although that's not my are) is that they are tightly regulated with a required ratio of staff to children. Given that by far the greatest expense is staff costs, then there is pretty well no flexibility as you cannot become 'more efficient' by reducing costs, because you can't as that would mean increasing staff to children ratio which would be unlawful.

I gather with the increase in numbers of 'free hours' from 15 to 30 a week only about half of nurseries have signed up to provide it. If that continues the policy will fail as parents won't be able to access their 'free' entitlement in practice, rather than in theory.

It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.
Is the model terribly good? Shouldn't bigger organisations be running it if one insists on having a private model?

[Rhiannon]

It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.
Is the model terribly good? Shouldn't bigger organisations be running it if one insists on having a private model?

I'd argue the for the opposite. Smaller businesses are generally able to offer a more personal service - there is more to what they offer than just the bottom line, or having to keep shareholders happy. And as with care homes, nurseries should be diverse in nature to offer a range of options for families to choose from - big business doesn't offer this.