***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
=============================================================
"I wouldn't trust Labour to run a whelk stall"
Comment heard on the wireless this morning.
:-D
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 May 17 at 10:34
|
>>"I wouldn't trust Labour to run a whelk stall"<<
If they did run a whelk stall, despite all their talk of equality, there wouldn't be a woman running it...
|
|
I used to know someone who was in the Whelk fishing business in Wells next the Sea ( the whelk capital of Englnd) and he did quite well for himself. A lot of money in whelks.
|
|
This'll warm the cockles of your heart: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HrRysZrFoE
|
>> A lot of money in whelks.>>
Always a big whelkome no doubt...
|
A " better kinder politics" as espoused by the nice Mr Corbyn..
"John McDonnell has sparked a furious row after he refused to apologise for attacking a Tory MP's "stain of inhumanity".
The Shadow Chancellor was confronted on live TV today by Esther McVey - and the pair have serious history.
He repeated a joke on stage at a 2014 comedy gig about "lynching" the former employment minister, who was an architect of Tory welfare cuts."
It's not the Daily Mail.. it's the Mirror..
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-mcdonnell-refuses-apologise-lynching-8910718
|
There's some mixing up of words.
Madf correctly quotes McDonnell's words; 'a stain of inhumanity'. The Mirror reports today's interviewer as quoting (incorrectly) 'stain on humanity'.
I heard McVeigh speak on benefits while she was a junior minister. I see/hear daily the effects of benefit 'reform' on the sick and disabled.
McDonnell has nothing to apologise for.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 26 Sep 16 at 13:13
|
So you approve of his "lynching " remark?
|
>> So you approve of his "lynching " remark?
Probably have been better if he hadn't said it. Same is true of any amount of knockabout stuff from all quarters in the bearpit that the Commons all too often resembles.
I do though heartily approve of the 'stain of inhumanity' line.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 26 Sep 16 at 15:18
|
>>I heard McVeigh speak on benefits while she was a junior minister. >>
Strange you should talk about quotes and misquotes when you can't spell McVey correctly...:-)
|
Other than a short time as a "production worker", McDonnell has never been anything other than a political animal in one form or another and, seemingly, dedicated to destroying capitalism.
In contrast, Esther McVey worked in her family's construction business for a number of years, studied for the media and journalism, eventually ran her own business and proved a capable television presenter.
So she has real time experience of the big, wide world on a much larger scale than McDonnell, someone who I for one wouldn't trust no matter how many assurances he provided......
|
I'm not always convinced by that argument, that if you haven't experienced something it makes you less well qualified to be am MP (also heard it about teachers).
IMO some of the best managers I've come across have been professional managers, rather than professionals in the industry in which they are working. They would surround themselves with a reliable team of subject matter experts and technical knowledge which enables them to make objective decisions without the baggage of any real background of the matter in hand. Plenty of very capable and respected "captains of industry" have never worked at the coal face.
Just having been a TV presenter, done a bit of study or worked in a family business for a bit wouldn't be that persuasive for me anyway, even if I didn't hold the view above.
|
Yes, but one of the main complaints about many politicians is that they have little or no experience of the real world...:-)
The point being made was that Esther McVey had been there, done it and got the T-shirt.
Far better I reckon than being a "career" politician and little else...:-)
|
Entirely agree about the skillset; Just because you can do a job, doesn't mean you can manage people doing that job, or a company providing that product.
Some of the very worst examples of British management have come with people promoted from doing the job.
However, an area which I do believe is important, is an understanding of the realities of a job. The other set of appalling examples of British Management has come from managers who no understanding whatsoever of the challenges involved in reality.
So you don't necessarily need people who have done the job, but you do need people who understand the realities of it.
And as far as i can see most of our politicians have no experience of the jobs and responsibilities they take, nor any understanding of them.
|
>>So you don't necessarily need people who have done the job, but you do need people who understand the realities of it.
Yes, like the boss who seriously said that when we finished analysing a business (which took 7 hours) we could drive 100 miles (in the South East) and do another one before we headed home! He honestly thought we were onsite for about half an hour!
|
McDonnell today has pledged Labour to increase the minimum wage to £10 when elected in 2020, and to borrow £100bn. to invest in British industry to bring about a "manufacturing" renaissance, The £100bn. will be repaid by the extra tax income that this will generate.
I agree that the minimum wage should be enough for a decent life, but I'd like to hear a bit more about how that and the implied subsidies will sufficiently improve competitiveness so as to create the industrial renaissance, as well as how corporates can be made to pay increased UK taxes.
I'd also like to know how the $100bn. will be allocated. History suggests that it would end up being given to lame ducks rather than invested in attractive growth industries. Investment isn't that hard to come by for things that work.
Labour is still IMO much too internally fixated to be of any use to itself or the country. Corbyn's reappointment has nothing to reunite the party.
|
|
Command economies went out in the latter part of the last century. And Labour thinks they are a good idea.
|
|
The biggest employer of people on the minimum wage (or just a wee bit higher) is the UK Government, local authorities, NHS.........& the hundreds of thousands employed by the government/ / councils/NHS VIA an Outsource company (G4s, Serco, Crapita......)
|
|
I didn't know that, i suppose it's going to cost the government a lot of money if they bring it in.
|
|
Well, the taxpayer actually.
|
Increasing the minimum wage is good but could have side effect of incetivising to invest and improve productivity thus reducing demand for labour.
It also brings back the 'comparability dispute' where managers and skilled workers find their margin over folks on the basic rate eroded.
I've had an inquiry at work from a supervisor in the catering industry with this issue following the introduction of the £7.20 national living wage.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 27 Sep 16 at 10:31
|
The Government might have to reduce Old Age Pensions - as those are one of its largest costs..
This will pay for the increased costs for carers looking after decrepit OAPs..(We have 80+ year old neighbours who have a part time carer).
The net result could be more OAPs in care due to having less to spend on heating..
I jest of course.. But the Law of Unintended Consequences will apply...
|
Yes I know what you meant but I was just emphasising that the cost of Jeremy Corbyn's plans will have to be paid by real people paying increased taxes and not some anonymous entity called "the government".
It would be interesting to know how many of Labour's new members actually pay any tax.
|
>> It would be interesting to know how many of Labour's new members actually pay any
>> tax.
Everybody pays VAT.
And while Income tax doesn't kick in until around £200/week you'll pay NI once you go over £150, around 21 hours a week at NLW.
|
|
I was thinking income tax. A lot of the new members seem to be students who I suspect are neither paying income tax or national insurance and so tend to have a rather free attitude as to how other's money is spent.
|
>>..and so tend to have a rather free attitude as to how other's money is spent.>>
Standard Labour philosophy and has been for decades.
My Left Wing friends never really seem to grasp the fact that it's the private sector that pays for the public sector by creating the wealth in the first place; they think money grows on trees it seems.
Government officials and employees are paid out of the public purse - it doesn't create wealth producing employment.
|
> Government officials and employees are paid out of the public purse - it doesn't create
>> wealth producing employment.
>>
I don't think it's so black and white, both groups need each other. Neither exist in isolation.
|
>>I don't think it's so black and white, both groups need each other. Neither exist in isolation. >>
Quite true. But private sector employees pay both for their own pensions, services etc and for those of the public sector equivalents through their taxes.
Public sector worker friends point out to me that they pay income tax, VAT etc just as I and others do, forgetting or not appreciating that they are merely giving back taxpayers' money.
I've no problem with public sector workers - the emergency services, NHS, government and council employees and many others are vital and important members of society - but they don't create or, at best, contribute little real wealth.
|
> I've no problem with public sector workers - the emergency services, NHS, government and council
>> employees and many others are vital and important members of society
I think your statements above and below, are difficult for me to reconcile. Creating/structuring/whatever you want to call it, where companies can grow and make money is part of that contribution.
but they don't
>> create or, at best, contribute little real wealth.
|
|
The public sector (i.e. the Government) has a monopoly in the fact that if it falls short of the annual expenditure amount it requires it can either raise taxes or borrow against future potential tax revenues.
|
|
They can borrow and raise taxes, yes but I'm not sure what your point is?
|
>> The public sector (i.e. the Government) has a monopoly in the fact that if it
>> falls short of the annual expenditure amount it requires it can either raise taxes or
>> borrow against future potential tax revenues.
Not really seeing a big difference between that and a private company raising prices or borrowing money. In fact arguably the private company has even more opportunity in that it can go to the stock market to raise funds.
|
>> Everybody pays VAT.
They do, but VAT is a "Silent tax". When purchasing you look at the full price and don't think about how it breaks down into profit margins and revenue duties. Income tax is a bit different as it is a percentage of your salary which varies with the amount you earn and any alteration is immediately apparent. Many people are in favour of higher taxes - but only when it applies to someone earning more than they do.*
*Information gleaned from countless workplace canteen discussions over nearly half a century.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 27 Sep 16 at 11:23
|
"They do, but VAT is a "Silent tax". When purchasing you look at the full price and don't think about how it breaks down into profit margins and revenue duties."
Perhaps we should adopt the Canadian system. By law all price are show before sales tax and local taxes. That is added on at the point of sale. So if you something has a price tak of say $10 you will end up paying $11.20 say.
The logic is that the government believe that the citizens belive they should be aware of exatly how much tax they are paying.
|
Perhaps we should adopt the Canadian system. By law all price are show before sales
>> tax and local taxes. That is added on at the point of sale. So if
>> you something has a price tak of say $10 you will end up paying $11.20
>> say.
The Americans often do a similar thing, i always found it annoying.
|
>>
>> The logic is that the government believe that the citizens believe they should be aware
>> of exactly how much tax they are paying.
>>
Good idea. I'd like a pint of bitter please. That will be 50p, plus £3 tax.
Petrol 10p per litre (plus £1 tax)
|
>> Perhaps we should adopt the Canadian system. By law all price are show before sales
>> tax and local taxes. That is added on at the point of sale. So if
>> you something has a price tak of say $10 you will end up paying $11.20
>> say.
Whereas the law in the UK requires all prices to be gross of VAT so customers are not misled.
"Prices may be indicated exclusive of VAT at an outlet or through
advertisements from which all of your business is with business customers. If you
also conduct business at that outlet or through these advertisements with
consumers, however, VAT inclusive prices for all goods offered by traders to
consumers are required by the Price Marking Order. Further information can be
obtained from your local authority trading standards service or at these websites:
www.berr.gov.uk/files/file8175.pdf,
www.trading.standards.gov.uk/ "
See www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31900/10-1312-pricing-practices-guidance-for-traders.pdf
|
I think there is a real and worsening crunch on government income and both the sitting government and Labour need to be very careful before spending or pledging taxes as yest uncollected.
Taxes that are in any way proportionate to the profits arising on UK production and/or sales seem to be optional for multinationals. Wealthy individuals pay lower average rates of taxes on their incomes than ordinary wage earners and avoid property taxes using corporate structures.
Despite repeated good intentions, it seems impossible to change this.
VAT is more likely to go up than down, and I can envisage an increasing squeeze for income tax on PAYE incomes, and pressure on "benefits" including the state pension. Talk of breaking the triple lock ignores the fact that it was put in place because the UK was well down the league for state pensions in Europe, and still is.
|
>>the UK was well down the league for state pensions in Europe, and still is.
A personal example. I get two small private French pensions. The associated widow's mite is 60% of my take, whereas I think 50% is general in the UK. They are effectively indexed, something expensive to secure "chez nous". There are several extras available, e.g. aid with children's education in the event the pensioner dies prematurely (I don't qualify for these as I am not a French citizen).
|
State pensions are poor in the U.K in comparison with some European Countries.
The N.H.S is free do.In the Netherlands there is a compulsive insurance to pay.My sister pays a fair amount once a month to be covered.Everything is swings and roundabouts.
They do all receive once a year a lump sum what they call vakantie geld.Holiday pay a kind of a bonus pensioners included.
The Dutch have been lucky after the war standard of living shot up for everybody.
|
Jeremy Corbyn's plans will have to be paid by real people paying increased taxes and not some anonymous entity called "the government".
Yes quite aware of that thanks.
>> It would be interesting to know how many of Labour's new members actually pay any> tax.
>>
Not scientific, but looking at the news there seemed to be a spread of people going to his speaches. Not just protesters and students.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37584531
Jeremy Corbyn has shown "great guts" in his reshuffle of Labour's front bench, one of his new shadow ministers says.
Dawn Butler, the new shadow minister for diverse communities, told the BBC she felt it was a unifying reshuffle - amid criticism from some Labour MPs.
Which planet has she just arrived from ?
|
The planet of "can I keep my job please?"
Turns out Corbyn doesn't think that people rebelling against him is quite as honourable and supportive of democratic process as him rebelling against others.
|
Is it possible that the Labour Party will not split before the next General Election.
Can Labour survive the Corbyn revolution?
Is it time for Tony Blair to come back into frontline politics?
(I do wish you wouldn't start new threads when there is already a Labour leadership related thread! - moved)
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Oct 16 at 01:22
|
|
Tony Blair is a toxic brand in the UK - the only person that doesn't realise this is Tony Blair and possibly that other idiot Kinnock.
|
Tony Blair won three General Elections in a row.
He did that for the Labour Party.
|
|
A statement of the obvious perhaps but perhaps forgotten by those who now condemn him. I can't see any current politician emulating his success, certainly not May or Corbyyn
|
|
It's an odd one how he's viewed now, you'd think he lost more elections than any else rather than 3 big victories and yet no-one ever admits voting for him.
|
>> I did twice.
>>
Well that's one! Anyone else want to own up?
|
|
Anyone admit to voting for Theresa May. Oh hang on nobody did.
|
>> Anyone admit to voting for Theresa May. Oh hang on nobody did.
>>
I would think a fair few in maidenhead did.
|
|
Neither do they need to. Parties are elected, not Prime Ministers.
|
I even voted Conservative in the 2016 Local Elections.
I am praying the Labour Party move back to the political centre.
If not Labour will be lucky to have 100 MPs in the House of Commons at the next General election.
|
No if you want to be to be technical you are wrong. Parties are not elected, Individual MPs are elected.
In practice people vote in General Electiosn for the next Prime Minister hence Sooty's question and my response. Since Theresa May has such radically different views to David Cameron and indeed the policies outlined in the last Conservative Manifesto if this country has any pretence of being a democracy we should have a General Election as soon as possible.
|
There needs to be a General Election as soon as possible in order to give the British people a say on what Brexit actually means.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Greater London voted to Remain in the European Union.
There is no mandate for us to leave the Single Market.
It is up to us as voters to make that decision.
|
>> There is no mandate for us to leave the Single Market.
>> It is up to us as voters to make that decision.
We voted to leave the EU. The voters already decided.
If we leave the EU we leave the single market. To re-gain access and negotiate that access can only happen after we actually leave. We might get some form of agreement to continue with access after we leave - providing we continue to accept the EU terms.
So we could end up leaving, carry on agreeing to the current terms for a while including free movement and paying into the EU, etc. before we know what we get.
Who knows.
For sure there doesn't need to be an election until 2020.
|
>>No if you want to be to be technical you are wrong. Parties are not elected, Individual MPs are elected.>>
Generally the Leader of a party which has a majority in the House of Commons following a General Election becomes the Prime Minister.
However, Theresa May won the Leadership contest following David Cameron's resignation (I'm ashamed to say he chickened out of his responsibilities) and therefore automatically became Prime Minister; that was what Tory MPs were voting for at the time, although the main challenger eventually realised she had no chance of victory and conceded.
As a result there was no need for a General Election although, I would suggest, that if one was held over the next few months or even longer, the Tories would win a landslide victory.
|
At the end of the day the British people elected a Prime minister and party with one set of policies and have ended up with a Prime Minister who has completely different views but without any say in the matter for four years. Whatever the result of an election would be is not the point.
|
>>...the British people elected a Prime minister....>>
Exactly as in the case of Gordon Brown in 2005.
Brown - someone I would never have voted for - decided that he wished to become Prime Minister and demanded in 2007 that Tony Blair kept his promise to hand over the reins.
Brown was going to call an election in September of that year (he would almost certainly have won and with a good majority) and everything was in place for it to be held.
However, Brown suddenly had cold feet, thinking he could lose and called the election off at the eleventh hour. In the event, the General Election of 2010 took place, some two years earlier most likely than if Brown had won in 2007 and which followed the financial crisis of the late 2000s.
Brown lost the election (in part to a certain Mrs Gillian Duffy of Rochdale) as the Tories started a big turnaround in its fortunes; this was followed in 2015 by Labour losing 56 of 59 seats in Scotland to the SNP and the LibDems being reduced from 57 to just eight MPs.
Anyone who thinks that Corbyn and his ilk can play a major role in turning round such a devastating period in Labour's history is, more than likely, a fantasist. Labour has a very long way to go and until it finds its soul again it will continue to struggle - a shame as a strong Opposition Party is essential whatever its party colours.
|
>> However, Theresa May won the Leadership contest following David Cameron's resignation (I'm ashamed to say
>> he chickened out of his responsibilities)
Was it realistically possible for Cameron, defeated on a major piece of policy and having thrown the country into a political, constitutional and economic crisis to stay on?
I think not.
|
>>I think not. >>
Correct, but Cameron got out with all the speed of an Exocet missile.
|
>>but Cameron got out with all the speed of an Exocet missile. <<
I think he recognised a damage limitation exercise when he saw one!
Pat
|
>> Well that's one! Anyone else want to own up?
Might have voted for Labour candidate in 1997 in prospective landslide but previously and latterly voted Lib Dem as best tactically placed to unseat/deny the otherwise safe Tory.
|
I voted New Labour in 1997 and 2001 and 2005.
I also voted for Labour in 2010.
But in 2015 I voted Conservative.
At this moment I have got what I want.
A moderate Conservative Party not unlike New Labour was for 10 years.
|
|
Cor they're coming out of the woodwork tonight ;-)
|
>> Tony Blair won three General Elections in a row.
>>
>> He did that for the Labour Party.
He last won in 2005. Since then events/perceptions have changed not least as result of Iraq revelations. Meanwhile Blair has become more messianic.
Dominic Grieve's ur man.
|
>>He last won in 2005>>
Think Gordon Brown..:-)
|
>> Tony Blair won three General Elections in a row.
True, but hugely aided by an Opposition that seemed to want to help him.
|
Tony Blair won three General Elections by appealing to the moderate Centre.
He not only secured the core vote but won a large chunk of the centre vote by advocating a free market third way.
Bill Clinton did the same in America. He won in 1992.
Tony Blair won in 1997.
The modern Conservative Party under Theresa May is in the same way as the Blairite third way tradition.
|
|
Corbyn - the Tories' greatest asset.
|
>> Corbyn - the Tories' greatest asset.
My greatest nightmare. There are only two people who could be PM after the next General Election. Mr Corbyn or Mrs May. The Tories are fighting over Brexit and Heathrow and may be completely destroyed by 2020. At which point there is only one alternative.
The British public seldom vote 'for' a party. They tend to vote 'against'. So a vote against the Tories means Corbyn becomes PM. Terrifying. Utterly so.
|
The Conservative party could well end up with a new leader by 2020 as a result of internal differences but its not going to be "destroyed" and whoever the eventual leader is by the General Election I can't see many Tories voting for Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn. For good or ill the winners of the next General Election will be the Conservatives*
A more interesting prospect is the revival of the LibDems who, if they play their cards right could well capture a significant proportion of those disillusioned with the BREXIT vote together with more moderate Labour supporters. The Witney By election was a good result for them.
* Of course I predicted a victory for "Remain"
|
>> Of course I predicted a victory for "Remain"
And lost a few shekels at the bookies too I believe - like a fair few other Remoaners no doubt.
8-}
|
|
Yep. A three figure sum. Still you win some and you lose a lot more...... :-(
|
Three figures! - you must be made of money CG.
:)
|
A drop in the ocean compared to what BREXIT is going to cost us all Dog. Just wait till you order your holiday Euros for that holiday in Tenerife.
BREXIT is a huge gamble - too long odds for my taste.
|
>>BREXIT is a huge gamble - too long odds for my taste.
Maybe a few bob on Hilary is more to your taste CG.
|
>> A drop in the ocean compared to what BREXIT is going to cost us all
>> Dog. Just wait till you order your holiday Euros for that holiday in Tenerife.
Yes, it's all in the expense code. A bit like companies banking years of papered-over losses in "restructuring cost". Blame it all on Brexit.
I still think our first loss will be our least loss. They can carry on kicking their cans down the road, and the longer they do it the worse it will be in the end.
I just wish we could rely on our lot not to invent a new can-based game.
|
>> I can't see many Tories voting for Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
What do you think the proportion of natural Tory voters is, 25%? The rest are swingers.
So... imagine at the next election (let's forget about the boundary changes and the reduction to 600 MPs as it's all proportionate) the Tories lose 25 seats taking them to 305. That means they're *20* seats short of a majority (but 40 behind the aggregated opposition), so can't manage a minority administration as they're just too unpopular.
Corbyn loses 75 seats, taking him to 155. Backed by 50 Scot nats and 110 Lib Dems plus sundry greens and Plaid he leads an anti-Tory coalition. Wee Eck will take deputy PM in exchange for backing him, and Farron will take Chancellor and Clegg Home Secretary.
Together they will take us back into the EU, and to hell in a handcart.
[Edited to get my sums right.]
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 25 Oct 16 at 15:19
|
"Together they will take us back into the EU,"
Oh I do hope so.
|
>>Oh I do hope so.
I most certainly don't, not that we have managed to escape from the EU ... yet.
We (Brexiteers) will just have to sit tight for now until PM May triggers Article 50 in the new year.
|
>> We (Brexiteers) will just have to sit tight for now until PM May triggers Article 50 in the new year.
At which point we have served noticed that we will be leaving. We won't leave for a long while after that. Lots of things to agree and disagree on along the way.
|
|
I'll probably be in my box by then, but at least I'll RIP in the knowledge that you'll still be around to enjoy the benefits.
|
>> I'll probably be in my box by then
There's always a positive spin to most situations I suppose....
... What utter nonsense your comment is. I wish you well and hope you live to see the good or bad that comes of BREXIT. I hope you live to see the 'benefits' too.
|
>> The Tories are fighting over Brexit and Heathrow
>> and may be completely destroyed by 2020. At which point there is only one alternative.
Only a small minority of MPs care about Heathrow..
For us oop North, it's a cross the South has to bear..:-)
|
|
Was in Windsor, under the flight path, for a few days a while back. It's something I feel is a disaster for the locals:) This matter is v. suitable for the Royal Prerogative to be deployed!
|
We'll have to open up disused WW2 airports like RAF Davidstowe in Cornwall when Clinton gets in the oval orifice.
:}
|
>>Was in Windsor, under the flight path, for a few days a while back>>
Anyone who lives or buys a property in the immediate vicinity of an airport, large or small, cannot complain about noise levels or anything pertinent to the running of the airport.
Bit like those townies who buy a house in the country and are soon complaining about the noise of cockerels and church bells disturbing their "quiet" life.
|
|
I can't see any constitutional reason why they cannot complain about the increase in vexation, and also those who are not in the immediate vicinity. Many were in situ before the monster grew to it's current size. On a scale of stupid, Heathrow gets a 9, because of the flight paths and the associated pollution from jets and terrestrial traffic in a densely populated city.
|
Anyone who thinks we can rejoin the EU after triggering Article 50 and not lose all our opt outs should sit down and go back to primary school.
A "we want to rejoin the EU after saying we want to leave " is going to be very costly... And any party which suggests it is possible is living on another planet.
The EU would stiff us everyway they can..
PS and if the EU cannot agree a trade deal with Canada after 7 years, imagine agreeing what an EU army would do.. By the time an strategy is agreed, the event would have happened..
|
>> The EU would stiff us everyway they can..
Yes they would and they still will when we leave.
>> PS and if the EU cannot agree a trade deal with Canada after 7 years, imagine agreeing what
>> an EU army would do.. By the time an strategy is agreed, the event would have happened..
But like Canada is finding, getting an agreement with all EU member states is difficult. We'll have to deal with worse.
And don't someone trot out we'll just trade with other countries outside the EU rubbish. We need to do that as well. But are we expecting companies to send sales executives all over the world to replace customers companies already have in the EU?
Apologies for thread drift... this is about Corbyn. I fear for a proper opposition to the Conservatives. They are moving to the right. Labour has moved to the left. Time for the Liberals to regain ground - I hope.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 25 Oct 16 at 18:24
|
|
Ditto. I feared Labour had lost it some time ago, and however unpalatable, given the craven interlude led by Cleggy, the LibDems offer a saner approach.
|
>>...given the craven interlude led by Cleggy, the LibDems offer a saner approach. >>
The mind boggles at such a thought....:-(
|
>>The mind boggles at such a thought....:-(
I'm with ^this geyser.
|
>> Ditto. I feared Labour had lost it some time ago, and however unpalatable, given the
>> craven interlude led by Cleggy, the LibDems offer a saner approach.
>>
You should not confuse "more plausible" with "saner". It's how accidents happen.
|
Nick Clegg, the man (and everyone in the party) who publicly signed a pledge about university fees "“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative†and then once in the coalition government promptly reneged on the pledge.
Clegg is now going round telling anyone who will listen to him that Brexit voters were misled by lies. He forgets that to keep the "promises" made by Brexiteers, you'd need a government led by Farage, Gove and Gisela Stuart.
|
>> Clegg is now going round telling anyone who will listen to him that Brexit voters
>> were misled by lies. He forgets that to keep the "promises" made by Brexiteers, you'd
>> need a government led by Farage, Gove and Gisela Stuart.
>>
>>
We can but hope !!!
|
>>I fear for a proper opposition to the Conservatives.
Don't you worry. That already exists. There is Liam Fox to the right of them and Anna Soubry to the left of them. Far more effective than any official opposition as - given the size of their majority - it only takes six Tories (five after the Goldsmith debacle) to prevent the Government from winning a vote in the House.
Goldsmith is an arrogant fool.
Vote for him, and you vote against the Tories. Vote against him, and you vote against the Tories. What does he think he will achieve? My money is on the Lib Dems winning the seat. I'm certainly not going to help him; I put an enormous amount of effort into Boris's first campaign in London, and quite a bit into the second. Goldsmith had no interest in winning, so I didn't bother as he had no hope. He wasn't a clever enough "politician" - somebody who wanted to be elected in London had to be pro-EU.
|
>> Anyone who lives or buys a property in the immediate vicinity of an airport, large or small, >>cannot complain about noise levels or anything pertinent to the running of the airport.
>>
We bought our first house in 1965 in Hounslow and did not complain about the noise.
The days of Tridents 707s, Coronados, VC10s et. Now they really were noisy compared to todays whisper jets.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=isP1LVVZ6nU
Try this six mins in. Do I spy pollution?? Coronados were on regular scheduled services to LHR.
From my house at Hounslow I was one of a few who happened to see Concorde as it appeared out of low cloud on a diversion to land at LHR
The strange thing was NOBODY complained. Funny that!
|
Labour leadership thread Vol 1 - Stuu
