Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2017, 12:26 PM

Please note that the grilled Clacton kipper is off the menu. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-catering/menus/Menus%20AutumnWinter2016/Terrace-Breakfast-Specials2016.pdf.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 25 2017, 05:16 PM

You seem delighted that millions (more than the whole of the snp vote) are now represented by no one. A great day for democracy.👍
Still people shouldn't be represented if they have views out of kilter. Eh....

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 25 2017, 06:55 PM

Wonder what Jeremy has for breakfast? (Whenever he's not bewailing the death of a terrorist) whatever it is it gives him the Trots!! Boom boom!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2017, 07:27 PM

Maybe you're thinking about some other form of government, because it's pretty much the definition of democracy that the majority view prevails and if you're out of kilter with that then you just have to deal with it.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2017, 07:49 PM

Ha! And Ha again! Try telling that to the remoaners!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 25 2017, 08:33 PM

you sound like a bitter Tim Farron.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 25 2017, 08:52 PM

The lib dems wanted farron

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2017, 09:32 PM

Democracy guaranties nothing, including ensuring decency.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2017, 09:55 PM

Yeah, sure, not everyone gets democracy, though you haven't heard me complain, but I do think it's a bit rich when people use the mandate of the referendum to take such an absolute position on Brexit but then demand concessions for their own minority views on other matters.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 25 2017, 10:35 PM

An election is different to a referendum. But then you know that. Or are you saying when we have an election whoever gets the biggest percentage should get all the seats in parliament?

Posted by: newres Mar 26 2017, 05:59 AM

And election results are different every time. People change their minds which so 52% v 48% one year could reverse 5 years later which is why such monumental changes would need a little more than a simple majority on a single day.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2017, 07:45 AM

You were using a vague appeal to "democracy" to complain about how representative parliamentary democracy doesn't now represent your personal politics and then bolstering your argument by implying that the views of the 3.8 Million people that voted UKIP in the last GE share the entirety of your political outlook and are likewise unrepresented.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2017, 08:00 AM

That's true, it's a nonsense to think that the result must stand for all time and that the question can't ever be returned to, but that doesn't negate the referendum result this time round and like it or not democracy has spoken so we need to negotiate an exit. However, once the negotiations are over and we can see what Brexit actually means, I think it would be reasonable for the government to call a general election to seek an informed mandate to Brexit.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 08:52 AM

So you think we should elect a government based on a single issue?

If the people are to get a second chance to speak on Brexit it be in another referendum, not a general election where a huge number of votes will be cast on totally different issues.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 26 2017, 09:29 AM

I forget, how many referendums did we have last time, you remember, when we made the momentous (and fatally flawed) decision to enter the common market? Bloody hypocrisy!

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 10:35 AM

The 1975 referendum showed a large (35%) majority in favour of joining the common market. 40 years later a second referendum showed a narrow (4%) majority in favour of leaving. If a 35% majority can be reassessed after 40 years then a 4% majority should be reassessed far sooner.

I happen to think that the decision to leave is the fatally flawed one, but my point was not about whether we should have a third referendum just that to turn a general election into one was a mad idea.

I am, however, intrigued by leavers' fear of a second referendum - if the case for leaving is as good as they say they should be confident of an even larger majority in a second vote.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2017, 11:45 AM

I see the major flaw of stating we will have a referendum after negotiations will be that the Europe negotiators will ensure that we have a very poor deal to ensure that the UK electorate will not accept it? Do we then keep on negotiating and having referendums?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 26 2017, 12:03 PM

Wot, like Scotland?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 12:11 PM

It's a fair point, but the trend at present seems to be aiming at leaving without a deal - which means the EU negotiators would only be relevant in terms of the blame Brexiteers can pile on them for the lack of a deal.

In reality two years is a seriously tight timescale for a trade deal (it would be the fastet ever negotiated by EU) and they have to fit in all the complex exit negotiations in the same time. I doubt if we have the capability to do it; the EU might, but they've also got to get the agreement of 27 governments.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 26 2017, 01:20 PM

That's just the point, this isn't a single issue. The details of the Brexit deal touch on every aspect of government - economy, defence, immigration, human rights, environment, employment law, tax - everything. The question at the June referendum was very narrow and for such a significant decision the government need a mandate for the totality of those changes, and more especially so because May has so far been reluctant to engage parliament in those details.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 26 2017, 01:42 PM

I have no fear of a second referendum. I think it would now be 60 40 in favour of leave. As the plagues of locusts and general rapture predicted by some has failed to materialise. Much to there disappointment I may add...

Posted by: newres Mar 26 2017, 03:31 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 6 2017, 03:21 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/06/farage-says-it-would-be-dishonourable-for-mark-reckless-to-quit-ukip.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 6 2017, 04:30 PM

As a party it died when Nigel packed it in. To be honest its a bit shambolic now and I see it in its death throes. But, it achieved it's primary aim so give it that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 6 2017, 07:31 PM

I'm glad it's in decline, but I don't necessarily agree that it achieved its aim.

I'm no Europhile and believe that people should be free to trade with whoever they want and I think that trade agreements are little more than a protection racket. OK, so it's a little more nuanced than that because I also accept that it is the legitimate role of the state to regulate in order to protect the citizen, so I actually welcome a lot of regulation that has come out of Europe that protects the consumer, employee, and environment, and I think if the UK is going to regulate to protect its citizens then it also has an obligation only to allow imports that have been produced under equivalent regulation because if it's objectionable for example to allow UK manufacturers to employ child labour or pollute the rivers then it's hardly acceptable to out-source those objectionable practices or allow foreign manufacturers the commercial advantage of manufacturing in an unregulated regime and then selling into a regulated one, but I don't agree that there is any need for an EU administration because I don't accept that there is anything that needs administering centrally. It would of course be useful if states were to standardize regulations so that products manufactured in one state could be shown to be compliant with the regulatory requirements of another state so as to ease internation trade, but that doesn't require any super-state administration, it just requires that states cooperate to draft international standards which all states are then free to mandate or not as they please.

So like I say, I'm no Europhile, but UKIP poisoned the argument by making it about xenophobia, so whereas I'd have been happy to support a political movement that genuinely wanted to create a more just and equitable world that put the welfare and happiness of people at the centre of its politics, UKIP had nothing to offer and positively scorned my hopes for the world.

So yes, we're coming out of Europe, but I think there was an infinitely better way to win that argument, one based on international cooperation that could lead to greater peace and justice in the world. What UKIP have done in playing on people's fears and prejudices is make the world a more hateful, more intolerant place.

Posted by: newres Apr 6 2017, 08:12 PM

Hear, hear.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 6 2017, 08:19 PM

And I know for a fact that unicorns live in greenham and a bunch of leprechauns ride them to work at the rainbow factory. Wake up, start to live in the real world not planet corbyn.

Posted by: newres Apr 7 2017, 06:55 AM

There's no magic in the last two paragraphs. They are spot on.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 7 2017, 03:10 PM

Well 'talking' certainly worked for Stockholm today! Congratulations.

Posted by: newres Apr 7 2017, 03:15 PM

Lack of talking and military action didn't do much good for the Syrians either.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 7 2017, 03:20 PM

Depends on which side!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 7 2017, 03:25 PM

There's a time for talking and a time for the big stick! Boo ya!

Posted by: newres Apr 7 2017, 03:47 PM

Which ofcourse can change.

Posted by: newres Apr 7 2017, 03:49 PM

Although I wonder what the civilian death score is between Saudi v Assad v USA?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 7 2017, 05:24 PM

Time tu dust off them missiles boys! Yee har!

Posted by: newres Apr 9 2017, 05:17 PM

...and then from the safety of the suburbs wring hands when Europe's capitals pay the price.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2017, 08:26 PM

That's pretty much been it ever since the USA and its allies first invaded Iraq, and certainly since it toppled the regieme leaving 1Million dead and destabilised the region, provoking the creation of IS. In fact there's barely been a time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire when the west hasn't been playing off one middle east faction against another to manipulate the region for our own ends, and those pigeons are coming home to roost.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 9 2017, 11:08 PM

Notice it didn't stop tony Blair (Labour) and his cronies from taking us into the very same conflict with made up justification cos he thought it would make a good chapter in his memoirs!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 10 2017, 04:11 PM

If it read like I was obfuscating that fact then I apologise, that wasn't my intention. The invasion of Iraq under the fabricated pretext of WMD was a horrendous thing and the misery of that decision will be working itself out for the rest of the century. That was a decision made by a Labour government under Tony Blair and people should indeed be reminded of that.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 10 2017, 04:45 PM

Thank you for the clarification.

Posted by: Andy1 Apr 10 2017, 09:07 PM

Why would someone use WMD, when they knew full well what the response would be. They're either mad or claim false flag in order to blame someone else.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 11 2017, 09:24 AM

I would say WMD are 'usually' a last resort, so why would Assad use them when he is gaining ground?

Posted by: Rdg Apr 11 2017, 11:31 AM

Maybe because trump had said he wanted nothing to do with the syrian conflict and Putin back them in anything they do so, the syrian regime thought they could get away with it and it met some local targeted aim in that location. Trump ordering that missile barrage was actually very out of character if you look at his previous stance.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 12 2017, 10:42 PM

Hope you preppers are ready for ww3. Most US Billionaires are already residing in New Zealand... Its coming....

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 14 2017, 05:22 PM

And now the end is near... And we have reached the final curtain. Lead could be a good commodity buy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 17 2017, 06:42 AM

The UK courts are reported in the Grauniad as saying the the UK head of state has an implied immunity from prosecution for war crimes but I don't understand that reasoning. I would like to see Blair and Straw prosecuted and let the court settle the question.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/16/uk-attorney-general-in-bid-to-block-case-against-tony-blair-over-iraq-war

Posted by: On the edge Apr 17 2017, 08:35 AM

I'd suggest the last paragraph in the report has it 'everyone should welcome this case'. It's not over and the Court has yet to decide. It's only the Government law officer that is claiming 'implied immunity', and in words used in another establishment cover up case back in the 1960's 'well, he would, wouldn't he'. The judge in that one was very keen on a saying 'no one us above the law', quite right, not even Tony Blair. Will be interesting to see the outcome, but let's just hope the understated 'reforms' Blair and his old puppet master made to our old legal system haven't mortally wounded our constitution.

There is a much bigger issue in this case, which is the offence on which it is founded. Tony Blair can't simply be prosecuted for 'war crimes' or even aggression, the breach must be specified. From what I can see, this aspect is where the deficiencies are. Sadly, that means the action could well be lost but that other wholly undesirable decisions collected along the way will get set in concrete.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 17 2017, 07:15 PM

I must admit, I've got serious doubts about the plantiff's legal team in this case. Perhaps I'm being too old fashioned, but they are coming across as being rather more interested in the commercial publicity as opposed to the legalities. It would seem to me, that this action would have been far better coming from another nation ideally via the UN.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 18 2017, 10:57 AM

Well, that was a surprise! Jeremy has his work cut out for him, but if he can strike a deal with lib Dems (who, let's face it will share anyone's bed) he may be able to pull this one off. Just need ukip to shut up now.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2017, 03:41 PM

Going to be interesting this one. The old regime still haven't quite understood that the 'jam's' are the very ones who like Jeremy Corbyn.

Trouble is, rather too many pundits confuse charisma with leadership. Let's face it, Clement Atlee would have got nowhere today and look how well the Tory wannabes fared immediately post Thatcher.

Time to forget Esso Blue style opposition.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 18 2017, 07:00 PM

I dint know anyone who would vote for Corbyn. Lets face it if he gets in we may as well all give our jobs up and live off the state. Free money for everyone.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2017, 08:51 PM

No, probably because you don't live neat bus constituency but you might know a lot of people who'd vote Labour. Does anyone really vote for 'the leader' these days?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2017, 09:51 PM

Most people have empathy, so there's this natural inclination to help other people who are less well off because you can't help putting yourself in their shoes and feeling their pain. However, on the one hand you want to help people who have less than you, while on the other hand there's a natural inclination to want to keep everything you have to yourself, and while some people resolve that conflict by reconciling themselves to giving away some of what they have so that other people don't have to suffer, others resolve that conflict by stopping themselves thinking about other people as people and that effectively quenches their empathy - so for example you'd talk about the feckless rather than jobless, immigrants rather than refugees, or numbers rather than names.

So yes, if that narrative helps you cope, then OK, but another way to look at it is that taxation pays for services that any of us might have a need for but which we'd find hard to afford on our own - that's more or less a definition of socialism.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 18 2017, 11:19 PM

Free vodka and potato soup for all eh comrade? A country of lager swilling, fag smoking, 55" TV owning, BK eating, work shy oxygen thieves​. Still, it's a vision, of sorts.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2017, 05:26 AM

Think of the poor drug addicts. They need free cash otherwise they have to commit crime. Vote Corbyn. As I said if he gets in I dont see the point in working. May as well join in with the big spend on the Country credit card. Pub TV and free Sky for everyone.👍

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2017, 05:33 AM

Im sorry but I've never read such a steaming pile of tosh. Helps you cope???? Socialism???? Better move to France Simon and vote for Melenchon. 90% tax and a maximum 32 hour week! Id be finished by Wednesday each week...😂

Posted by: newres Apr 19 2017, 06:29 AM

Great post, but I can't help thinking that it's less a coping mechanism and more plain nastiness.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 19 2017, 06:34 AM

Umm, so you work an excessively long week and haven't made any 'overseas' arrangement to deal with your tax? Sure, that's the lot of many of us today. Of course, whilst all the time one's boss is floating about the Med, whilst his gold stacks up. Who's the sucker TDH?

Oh well, best keep our heads down and earn enough to help the kids through Uni, at least the way we are, not having the high end jobs in this Country means they'll never have to pay back their student loan! And anyway, at least when we stop work age, the NI contributions we've made will keep us comfortable 'till the van comes, won't they?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2017, 06:46 AM

I see my boss every day working his balls off as a FTSE250 CEO. Don't believe all the cr@p that you read. Sure you have bad bosses. You alao have bad employees.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 19 2017, 08:07 AM

So that's one......and counting!

So, I shouldn't believe that Weetabix is now on foreign hands, as are most of our utilities or that the only car industry we have is bolting up foreign designs and we can't even scrape enough engineers to design a big power station, and, and, and.

Would your Boss care to explain his success? Seriously, we need a national lesson, because the only one we are getting from HMG is 'greed is good'.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 19 2017, 09:00 AM

Wot we needs is for UKIP to campaign to take seats from pro Brexit labour seats while encouraging UKIP voters elsewhere to vote Tories. With luck we get a hard exit and an end to benefits Britain.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 19 2017, 03:11 PM

So, 'six jobs' Osborne has gone. Good. Now is the time for ALL the West Berks remainders to influence Brexit, how? By electing a lib dem to parliament.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2017, 03:51 PM

A Remainder? Something left behind after the main calculation has been made.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 19 2017, 06:09 PM

DOH! TDH, you sooo funny!😂

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 19 2017, 06:32 PM

United Airlines.. Putting the Hospital in Hospitality.... 😄

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 19 2017, 10:43 PM

"If you can't beat the competition"

"Beat your customers instead"

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2017, 02:47 PM

Surely it's once bitten twice shy for West Berkshire? I think most realise that LibDems are yellow because they are too scared to show blue. LibDems and Tory, a choice between Stork and Butter, most people can't tell the difference.

Posted by: newres Apr 20 2017, 03:36 PM

West Berks voted remain. If we treat the election as a single issue as TM suggests, I can see Benyon losing his seat.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 20 2017, 04:37 PM

Lib Dems held it before, go for it! 😁

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2017, 06:46 PM

Yellow peril has cooked its goose; credibility well and truly shot. Our rural Cousins are entrenched RB supporters, Labour have now got themselves organised round here and likely to inflict damage to dear Judith.

They know they have no chance in West Berks, hence their wannabes try elsewhere. If they were really serious, they'd run out one of their local luminaries.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 20 2017, 08:13 PM

God your sooo out of touch. I dislike Benyon but ill vote for him. No other choice. 20000+

Ps Tim Farron is an odious man. And he believes in the sky fairy. Anyone who isnt scientific or logical doesn't deserve to serve the people. In my humble view.

Posted by: newres Apr 20 2017, 09:32 PM

Not like that nice Mr Farage.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 20 2017, 10:14 PM

Whsts Farage got ti do with it? Is he standing?😂

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2017, 11:03 PM

I inferred that newres thinks that you are a Farage fan but Farage is odious too.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 21 2017, 12:00 AM

Strange- I like him, he's a nice chap. But I won't be voting for him.

Posted by: newres Apr 21 2017, 06:09 AM

Has there ever been a more odious leader? Anyway, I was just making the point that if it were a single issue election, Benyon would lose his seat. Besides, we don't vote for a president, we vote for a party.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 21 2017, 06:42 AM

In recent times, people voted for Ted Heath.

A good few do vote for a person, I don't think fox hunting is right, but I'll still vote for Benyon. One of the reasons for that is my dislike of 'professional politicians' interested only in serving their party.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 21 2017, 06:49 AM

That's me too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2017, 07:00 AM

Err... I'd say that sums Mr Benyon up nicely, party before constituents. He is a clearly a 'Toryboi'. Look at his messages which demonstrate a party evangelist in operation. In particular the revised local settlements for council tax.

It is easy to appear to be an ethical or nice politician when you don't need the money.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 21 2017, 07:30 AM

Are you sure the politics of envy haven't cut in Andy C?

Benyon has actually gone against party particularly when supporting his country activities; like them or no. Nice Judith is even more a party clone, shoehorned in. Sure Benyon is well heeled, but one can't help wondering how she manages to support herself, it seems to make little difference.

It will be interesting to see what other candidates appear. This should be a good opportunity for Labour to start demonstrating that locally we really do have a real choice other than two shades of blue.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2017, 01:25 PM

He is often cited as being honest with his exes, etc, but that is easy when you don't need the money.


He seems pretty natural to me but Richard Benyon has never rebelled against their party in the current parliament.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11727/richard_benyon/newbury

Richard Benyon’s voting in Parliament

Richard Benyon is a Conservative MP, and on the vast majority of issues votes the same way as other Conservative MPs.

This is a selection of Richard Benyon’s votes.
Generally voted for encouraging occupational pensions Show votes
2 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2010–2011

Generally voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs Show votes
1 vote for, 4 votes against, 1 absence, between 2010–2016

Generally voted against removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords Show votes
1 vote for, 2 votes against, 1 absence, between 2011–2016

Voted a mixture of for and against a wholly elected House of Lords Show votes
3 votes for, 5 votes against, 1 absence, between 2007–2016

Generally voted for greater restrictions on campaigning by third parties, such as charities, during elections Show votes
8 votes for, 0 votes against, 4 absences, between 2013–2016

Consistently voted for university tuition fees Show votes
3 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2010–2016


We have lots more plain English analysis of Richard Benyon’s voting record on issues like health, welfare, taxation and more. Visit Richard Benyon’s full vote analysis page for more.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 21 2017, 01:50 PM

He's a good 'ole boy! Good party member, true Tory, we need more like him in government. Blue to the very core. Hoorah!!

Posted by: x2lls Apr 21 2017, 02:54 PM

Ain't that the truth!! And your view is by no means humble. Don't shirk behind a valid view.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 21 2017, 03:28 PM

Yeah, rite on. No room for Christians in this country. I'm off now, Bhuffi the infidel slayer is showing on al Jazeera in a minute.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 21 2017, 03:43 PM

Going against isn't just voting, it's also influence before and behind. Say what you will, for better or worse, Benyon will have rather more influence in the corridors of power than anything their erstwhile coalition buddies might put up. Voting LibDem is the intellectual equivalent of spoiling your ballot paper.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2017, 04:50 PM

Such is the way this democracy is arranged, one can find themselves in a political enclave; however, who said anything about voting Lib Dem?

I have the rather cynical view that safe seats don't curry so-much favour as they are 'safe'. Marginals may have a different experience.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 21 2017, 06:19 PM

And I'll bet an orange to the whole of Lombard Street that most of the 'angry activists' both on this forum and Berkshire as a whole won't even go and vote! 😠

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 21 2017, 07:46 PM

I have voted in every election since I was.18 years old! If you dont vote you shouldn't moan. Thats my view.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2017, 08:13 PM

I have voted in nearly every one, but I find myself distinctly not wanting to vote for anyone.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 21 2017, 08:18 PM

Well, just do your duty and go, but spoil your ballot paper. You'll at least have the quiet satisfaction that the candidates will be shown your message.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 22 2017, 07:21 AM

Vote "None of the above". Brewsters Millions...

Posted by: On the edge Apr 26 2017, 03:51 PM

Well, for me and for the first time, I honestly don't give a monkeys about this election. It matters not who wins or who forms a coalition. In or out, hard or soft, whichever way we choose will lead to national disaster. Once we've spent the last few quid, there is nothing left.

Posted by: newres Apr 27 2017, 11:13 AM

The Newburytoday poll puts the Libdems 7 points ahead of the Tories.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 27 2017, 11:35 AM

Trump
Brexit

Posted by: On the edge Apr 27 2017, 12:15 PM

Having seen the big adverts.....'well, they would, wouldn't they'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 27 2017, 12:16 PM

Proof you can't trust politics to berks!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 27 2017, 04:05 PM

Or polls apparently.

Posted by: newres Apr 27 2017, 05:18 PM

Although if the election is single issue, a victory for the Libdems makes sense here.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 27 2017, 07:25 PM

Except they have an irritating twot in charge!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 28 2017, 06:40 AM

For me, it would just be like voting Tory lite; the same as the real thing with something missing. In reality, the county areas will keep the constituency true blue until the demographics change and then the real opposition will cut in. A few years away yet, but coming; once those thousands of commuter apartments are filled. Liberal Democracy is really an oxymoron; two irreconcilable components. Simonite Liberals holding hands with Macdonald socialists, doesn't work even on paper. So, from where I am, the only credible proposition on offer right now is Labour; even round here.

Why; the Torys know they are unassaibable and even if the unthinkable happened and Richard Benyon was defeated, they believe his replacement would be essentially one of their own a LibDem. For them, and locally for sure, a strong Labour vote sends a really hard message.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 08:15 AM

Which I think isn't necessarily a bad thing. I thought the coalition was the best government we've had for some time. Better that than having the coward and liar that is Theresa May and her sheep.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 28 2017, 09:02 AM

You really are a nasty little fool aren't you.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 28 2017, 09:24 AM

I found the perfect radio station the other day, FM 💯 Yes folks, it's kisstory! Yay!!

Posted by: James_Trinder Apr 28 2017, 09:44 AM

I agree. It was a good mixture of financial competence and social conscience.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 11:00 AM

What is it I said or say to make you think that?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 28 2017, 02:08 PM

So it might have been if you are a soft Tory. Two posh spivs and their patsy, no not a combination I'd like to see again. I don't think anyone should be under any illusions about the vicious cuts policy. It didn't happen overnight and Cameron and his mates thought the coalition would continue. Hence the disorientation when they got the surprise majority. Sorry, the LibDems are complicit; they agreed the programme.

Some LibDems saw through Clegg's duplicity, hence Cable running amok sniffing round Labour. Their 'we'll have a coalition with anyone' policy is simply a sign that the obvious rift between Liberals and Social Democrats never ever healed. It won't now either, perhaps the old Liberals need to do what they did in the 1930s and join the Tories leaving the SDPers to go back home to Labour.

So, I'm not voting for a 'non' party.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 02:38 PM

Would you be able to give some examples?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 28 2017, 06:29 PM

They had Laws and Alexander at the Treasury, Cable at BIS and Ed Davey at energy. Not one of them mute! Policy isn't made up on the hoof and given even optimistic potential election predictions at the time, it was thought highly likely that the coalition would continue. Therefore, it would beggar belief that the treasury plans, which are always long term, weren't at least known by the treasury ministers - yet the LibDems remained silent in the hustings.

A coalition is, of course, a partnership. Inevitably, just like any other partnership, a weak party succums to the strong. Apart from personal vanity for office and as the nation wasn't in mortal danger, I can't see what advantage a coalition brings to the weak or small member. That's probably why in our system most peacetime collaborations have been pacts. The LibDems would have retained their integrity and in fact enjoyed rather more influence, if they'd had a pact instead. Ironically, it was the late David Rendel who saw that.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 28 2017, 06:32 PM

All the talk of 'This county voted remain/out', 'This country voted remain/out, is utter BS, REALLY BS.

How about, 'Well, the total amount of voters who voted in Reading, Newbury and Hull blah blah blah voted 'remain/out'.

I could come with a multitude of self chosen locations, determined by me who voted my way/not my way.

Give it a rest.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 07:10 PM

None of that proves that subsequent fiscal policy was endorsed by the Lib Dems. Indeed, it seems that when given total power it went to go to Osborne's head and he indulged in a series of daft policy manoeuvres, where as when he was in with the Lib Dems, the policies that came out of the treasury seemed more progressive or coherent.

Anyway, my argument wasn't whether it was a good government, only that it seemed to be the best one we've had. It seems from things I have heard, the Lib Dems were more effective opposition to the Tories than the official opposition at the time. All things being said, not re-electing the coalition might end up being a bit of a disaster for the country... or the poor. Giving total power to Cameron and Osborne seems to have wrecked everything, including their political careers.

I suppose we have to be careful what we wish for as we now have the 'coward (no debate) and liar (no snap election) in Theresa May.

This is all a shame as up to now I would have said I had respect for Cameron and May, but that respect has recently been shattered. May is every bit as Machiavellian as Blair was; perhaps more.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 28 2017, 08:55 PM

Oh dear, nasty people lying to you are they? First it was VW, now it's Theresa May. Poor boy.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 28 2017, 09:26 PM

Your last sentence sums things up. Good government has been slowly lost for years and yes, Blair had his foot on the accelerator so came the Labour car crash, against that the coalition was like newly polished brass, but the shine came off and the tarnish soon appeared. Without doubt, the Tories are responsible for where we are now, but by physically joining them, the LibDems at best aided and abetted. I can quite see where you are with Cameron and May, indeed empathise with that. For me, I can't bring myself to vote for either party; which round here means Labour is the only option. The much maligned Jeremy Corbyn is ironically the only leader who has stood is ground and the only one who has a properly different proposition; even to his Labour predecessors.

Yes, we seem to have wrecked everything. In my view, and I believed this before the referendum, staying in Europe without a massive change, was leaving us to national disaster; us becoming the new Estonia. Since, having heard the political noise, my only worry in voting Brexit was that we seem to have lost our national ability to actually manage and so survive on our own looks as if it's confirmed. I'd argue then, with his 'let's see what's best' approach to Europe, Corbyn is probably best placed to secure the right answer.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 09:36 PM

And don't I get on your nerves!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 28 2017, 09:41 PM

Here's a little tip, they're politicians, all of them. They say what's expedient at the time. Look up politicians in the dictionary, they're somewhere between estate agents, lawyers, and that icky brown stuff you find when you lift a rock out of a fish tank. It's what they are, it's what they do. And if you still have difficulty understanding that then you shouldn't be allowed out without your nanny.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 28 2017, 09:47 PM

Where did I say I don't understand, but while you all keep voting for them or buying their over priced and polluting cars, nothing will change or get better.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 28 2017, 10:08 PM

I don't think politicians make cars? Or do they? Cars are great by the way, pollution? Nature's way of population control.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 28 2017, 10:24 PM

Struggling much with concepts he is. The force is weak in this one it is. Sad much.

Posted by: newres Apr 29 2017, 06:46 AM

Pot.... kettle.... black?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 07:06 AM

Said the fools friend.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 07:51 AM

So, I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, grassy knoll, Atlantis and all that, but, what if the conservative government actually WANTS to lose the election? Sounds weird but, no difficult decision over brexit? No thwarting the democratic will of the people? No backlash? Four years of financial incompetence of a lib lab pact and then when all's done and dusted sweep back in as the rescuers and enjoy​ the next four or so terms saying "we told you so". Far fetched? Maybe, but, here's the thing, we're talking about politicians here so anything is indeed possible! 😎

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2017, 08:02 AM

Yes, empty vessel make loudest noise!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 08:48 AM

They do, don't they, trouble, is that's all you've got. Noise and bad grammar.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2017, 09:13 AM

You might want to brush up on your punctuation before criticising other people's command of english.

Come to think of it, you don't write Mr Benyon's letters, do you? The last one I read had a number of errors in it.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2017, 09:30 AM

Err; that's the frightening thing, it doesn't seem implausible. The Conservatives have always played the long game; party above all. In essence, all they wanted to do wad put the fifty year internal row about Europe to bed for good. You can add to the conspiracy the silky smooth transfer of power from someone who really didn't need the job to the daughter Mrs Thatcher hoped for and the Party is safe. Sure, there was a lot of handwringing and gnashing of teeth, but they know we love theatre. The reality shows up in what Oiky Osbo got for his part; better than winning the lottery! Remember it's the oldest political party in the World and didn't get there by being popukar. Five years ain't long in the grand scheme of things, triples all round.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 09:34 AM

Gibberish, pure and simple.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 09:36 AM

So, the truth IS out there.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2017, 09:51 AM

The audience member on QT did everyone a favour when he pulled-up Damian Green about the use of 'coalition of chaos'.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 12:14 PM

Labour with it's hard line Trotsky cadre of momentum thugs would plunge this country back into the stone ages inside four years and leave us at the mercy of every hard-line state in the world. Uncosted public spending promises, attacks on our military, constant back biting and infighting, a desire to pander to every single left wing issue under the sun. Chaos? Not nearly a strong enough term for that outcome.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2017, 12:26 PM

Why are you so scared?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 12:47 PM

Sure, you've said that kind of thing before and struggled to make it stick, but this is a thread for you to lay out what UKIP would offer instead.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 29 2017, 12:53 PM

Methinks this is mischief making....

UKIPs done and dusted. Thats why May will end up with 400 seats..

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 02:39 PM

Ukip is as dead as a dead thing. Should pack it in and go home. The Tories are the only sensible choice now, unless you're a trot Britain hater intent on seeing the very chaos promised by the Corbynites. Four years of give always followed by financial ruin followed by sixteen more years of even steeper austerity to try to claw back the dept. Social justice? Spongers charter you mean.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 02:44 PM

I agree, and with Paul Nuttall busy preparing to open the batting for England this summer the election has come at a busy time for him so it'll be a shame if it means he misses out on the Nobel Prize for Physics this year as it would have been nice for him to have won all five.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 02:45 PM

Because I love my country? Because I don't want to see it thrown to a pack of spiteful slavering Trotsky hounds? Because I honestly believe the Tories are on the right track? Because I believe in a strong independent nation? Because I don't want my tax revenue going to house ner do wells and spongers when it could be used on hospitals and schools?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 03:22 PM

Can you put any substance behind that, because all I see is a bunch of lazy abstractions and ungrounded smears. I mean really, "unless you're a trot Britain hater intent on seeing the very chaos promised by the Corbynites" - that's a bit hysterical isn't it?

As for social justice, yes, that is what I want, and I believe a Labour government under JC offers the best prospect of that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 03:34 PM

Here I agree with you. Look at this lot, on their way to a £2,500 feed at the expense of the tax-payer.


And I'm not being flippant, I mean it - there is enough public money to pay for decent social services but it's being squittered away.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 03:38 PM

What you want is born out of spite and envy, social justice should mean get out what you put in, not expect the people who give a rat's **** enough to make something to give it away for nothing to the "it's my human rite in it" bunch. Have you seen the hateful booklet being touted by some members of labour? A direct attack on serving men and women, disgusting but typical. The left are a bunch of wreckers and vile sickos bent on destroying all that is good. And why does the left wail on about freedom of speech? Free until you don't agree then the knives come out.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 04:05 PM

Whilst I feel the above argument may be a trifle partisan I do have some sympathy for JSC's arguement especially after reading this piece of barely believable liberalism. I despair, I really do. Read on.

"Oxford University has apologised for suggesting that students who avoid eye contact could be guilty of racism, after it was accused of discriminating against autistic people.

The university’s Equality and Diversity Unit has advised students in their Trinity term newsletter that it could be deemed a “racial microaggression” which can lead to “mental ill-health”.

Other examples of “everyday racism” include “not speaking directly to people” and asking someone where they are “originally” from, students were told"

Where I come from not making eye contact is a form of self defense.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 04:11 PM

What you've described is "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost". That's Conservatism, and for example if you need medical care you'll just pay for it yourself, and if you can't afford your care then that's tough. In a socially just society everyone makes a fair contribution to a national health fund and the sick get treated irrespective of their personal contribution. That's a good thing for most people because should you be unfortunate enough to need it you can get treatment that you would otherwise be unable to afford.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 04:13 PM

Yup! Dead right, and it's because I believe in conservative methods of government. Nothing wrong with the poor house.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 04:31 PM

I don't know why you're dropping this at my door. The advice was poorly conceived, though the idea of micro-aggression which is what was being addressed here is sound enough - low level social cues which would be inappropriate to challenge individually but which can mount up and create significant harm. Actually I don't see the problem of reminding people that eye-contact is expected in polite company, and sympathetic as I am to people with social phobias their rudeness will come over as rude.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 04:38 PM

OK, but you were attempting to redefine social justice in terms of conservatism, and they're different things. So sure, if you see nothing wrong with the work house then that's your view and you're entitled to it, and we can agree to disagree.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 04:41 PM

Not dropping at anyone's door, just pointing out a very silly report presumably written by a bunch of smug people in the Dept of right on ism. Try addressing real racism and stop wasting my time with this nonsense. Is all 😚

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 04:44 PM

Fair enough, we will never ever see eye to eye on this.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2017, 05:09 PM

Members of the Armed Forces have been prosecuted under the recent Conservative administrations and whilst they have started to put things right, they've only done so after public disgust has been seen. Then we have the treatment of the Gurkahs and the continued penny pinching on critical personal protection by the MOD. Unauthorised school boy scribblings pale into insignificance against these wrongs.

Then there are the envious greedy people doing stuff all and expecting others to keep them. Are you referring to the likes of Phil Green and Freddie Goodwin, etc.etc,etc. Who equate stewardship with personal ownership.

Keep an eye on your pension old son, one of your mates is already eyeing up the possibilities...all market forces you understand.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 05:30 PM

Err, what have otters got to do with it.?

But I don't​ find this funny, at all.

"Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters have been selling sickening anti-military propaganda labelling soldiers ‘professional murderers’.

A spoof Army recruitment leaflet that joked about ‘free prosthetic limbs!’ was available at a rally next to where the party was signing up new members.

It makes fun of those who have lost loved ones, including the line: ‘For your parents, a free coffin filled to the brim with assorted pieces of soldier in their own gravy.’ and another tasteful snippet,

"Another cartoon shows a soldier saying: ‘Nothing quite beats the excitement of lying in a ditch crying for my mother, covered in bits of my best friend’s brain.’

Nice. But if and when, it kicks off again it's these very people who will defend these sad sickos with their lives. But then, that's the left for you.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 29 2017, 05:44 PM

Couldn't agree more. The Lords should also be abolished. You should not in this day and age be able to "buy" a part of democracy.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 29 2017, 05:45 PM

Duplicate

Posted by: On the edge Apr 29 2017, 06:05 PM

Yes, I wholly agree that this literature is wholly inappropriate and more to the point not authorised. Sadly, there is all sorts of repugnant junk published electronically and online. That's freedom of soeech for you; which another keen Tory supporter in here is very keen to preserve.

Again, even the Tories had adopted a Kiplingesque (Tommy) approach to the armed forces. Not supporting our service personnel and even letting them face the full force of law alone; whilst their very own Law Officer making a former Prime Minister immune!

One serving soldier had just been released, then after a niggling appeal, only after Much grass roots pressure.

I could dig around in the literature I get sent from all main parties and be similarly disgusted, but it's generally consigned to the septic tank, smeared with brown stuff.

So, yes when things do kick off again, I trust that the Tory MPs and Ministers concerned with our Armed Forces take due note of messages and petitions I've sent over the past few years. So that our troops are adequately equipped and are properly immune from prosecution. Presumably you've been doing the same?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 06:16 PM

"Hartlepool UKIP rally marred by women's street fight"
Err, wasn't it Hartlepool where they hanged a monkey because they thought it was a French spy?
Figures.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2017, 06:55 PM

Oh really?

Accident of birth; sorry.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 07:00 PM

Now who'es trying to engage in ad hominum posts eh?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 07:48 PM

I do agree, and we're unusual as a northern European democracy not to have a unicameral system of government.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 08:42 PM

You're referring to the work of the satirical artist Darren Cullen produced in support of Veterans for Peace. https://www.spellingmistakescostlives.com/single-post/2016/09/27/TABLOID-FURY's Darren Cullen's page for the piece, and http://vfpuk.org/2016/veterans-back-sick-toys/ is the Veterans for Peace defence of the work.

The piece was protesting the Army's recruitment of 16 year old child soldiers and the dishonest promotion of war to school children. Here for example is http://hmarmedforces.com/index.html, a whole battalion of toys licensed by the MOD.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 29 2017, 08:48 PM

I beg your pardon Simon, but that's not satire, that's just sick and there is no excuse for it. None whatsoever and you do yourselves a disservice by trying to do so. And did you never have action man figures as a child? That's an incredibly week argument and I thought I knew you better than that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 29 2017, 09:20 PM

You might not like it, but it is satire - it's offensive, but satire frequently is. The point is whether it's effective criticism, and I'm not sure it is because of how it provokes outrage such as yours.

So I'm not defending the piece, but I do share the veterans' objection to the promotion of war to children, and the promotion of war generally in society.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 29 2017, 11:18 PM

And you have the utter gall to sneer at UKIP. Unbelievable, I hope (personal opinion) that the person responsible finds a couple of squadies tap dancing on his liver very soon. In a satirical manner of course. Free expression and all that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2017, 07:08 AM

Pedaling drugs to kids at the school gate is pretty objectionable, but you have not a qualm about pedaling that old lie right inside the school: Dulce et decorum est pro patria Mori?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2017, 07:44 AM

You might need to lookup the meaning.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 30 2017, 07:55 AM

"There's no discernable difference between Lib Dem and Conservative once you get past the Brexit question, and especially not in Newbury where the local Lib Dems are no more bothered by the cuts to public services than the Conservatives, but if social justice is your concern Labour is a genuine alternative - a stalking-horse not a one trick pony."

Only because the lib Dems didn't want you isn't it? You tried, and they didn't want to know. Then your buddy threw his toys out of the pram and ran away. Point is, no-one wants you. Its what comes from being a thoroughly nasty piece of work matey. Perfect fit for Labour though, anti Brit, anti decency. Well done Simon, found your spiritual home.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2017, 08:37 AM

That's the trouble with a democracy: people voicing different opinions. It is a facist state that would beat someone trying to expose the ugly side of war.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 30 2017, 10:25 AM

If we were really honest, we have absolutely no need for our own armed forces. The most we need is, for want of a better description, an upgraded fire, paramedic and police service capable of operating at an international level. Nothing more.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 30 2017, 10:31 AM

And it's curious that you can join the Army at 16, but you have to be 18 before you can join the Fire Service.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 30 2017, 02:12 PM

We need our armed forces. I think the above is at best naieve.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 30 2017, 02:26 PM

Care to explain why; or is that too hard?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 30 2017, 04:10 PM

NATO. Or do you think the USA should pay for everything? You really think Putin etc would not take advantage if he knew we were defenceless??? Do you???? Really????? Id rather not take the chance but perhaps you would. Care to explain why you think thay getting rid of all the armes forces is a good idea ? Or is that tooo hard????

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 30 2017, 04:14 PM

I blame old people. Logans run with a twist. Thats the answer. Get to 85. Stone in hand turns red. 🔥 works display at wembley. And it would get rid of all those **** brexit voters....

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 30 2017, 07:13 PM

Even better, for the election every voter gets a stone, those who vote for the losing party get the nice ride to a 'processing' plant somewhere in the country. No more dissemination, no more dissent. Easy.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 30 2017, 07:16 PM

That's easy! The loony tunes would rather take their chances with a flask of cocoa, two verses of the red flag and an invite to the other side to pop round for a cosy chat. Works every time you know. Guaranteed.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 30 2017, 08:19 PM

Calm down dear, it's only a discussion!

It would be very nice if the Americans did pay, some of us are old enough to remember they weren't exactly quick off the mark during certain other significant conflicts.

As for NATO, there are significant European nations not members, Sweden and Switzerland for example. There is also no reason why NATO should have its own capability no I'd have no objection in paying for that and letting British subjects be trained and based in UK. But the very existence of NATO demonstrates we do not need an independent armed force of our own under our political command. Mr Blair has clearly demonstrated the dangers of military independence.

As for Putin, if you have really been following events for the past few years, he has been somewhat more stable than certainly the latest American President. He has his own reasons for any aggression and has often been willing to parly than other dictators. On one occasion he even upset a puffed up Mr Cameron by implying he thought we are an irrelevance. What reason would be have to attack us? So no, I don't think he'd do anything to us at all.

Sure, there is a nuclear worry with North Korea, doubly worrying because their reason for a nuclear arsenal is because America has one. Oh dear, but again, loosing off nuclear weapons means both sides get it, so either way you are dead.

So for defence purposes, an independent military force isn't necessary, unless you feel we still have a need to independently attack and subjugate other people? I'm sure this won't help you sleep soundly, but Britian lost it's great military power status in the mid 1950s a Mr Eden was Prime Minister at the time.

So no, I don't think we need our own independent armed forces and so long as we maintain a professional competent Police force, I'll feel quite safe.

How is the shelter coming on; presumably you'll need a biggish oil tank for when the mains go?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 30 2017, 09:01 PM

You asked me. I answered. It wasn't hard. And I am quite calm thanks. I find the loony left and liberal types far more aggresive these days than even the right wing.

PS if the wind blows I'll be happy dead rather than the alternative.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Apr 30 2017, 10:06 PM

Better dead than Red.

Posted by: On the edge May 1 2017, 05:58 AM

Good! Your post script has it; indeed we'll all be dead no matter what.

So then, for me, it simply makes sense to spend our money on other things to make the best of it in the time we have before Messrs Putin, Kim or Trump push the big red button.

Posted by: newres May 1 2017, 10:20 AM

I'd say the world has more to fear from the USA than we do from Russia.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2017, 01:06 PM

When you are quitter.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 1 2017, 04:21 PM

Beginning to wonder if English (like driving) may be one of your 'fail' skills?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2017, 07:51 PM

I'll alert the media!

Posted by: On the edge May 2 2017, 01:51 PM

Well, Labour have now chosen their candidate and have clearly taken your views seriously. He's young!


The youngsters are said to have stayed away from the referendum because politics doesn't have anything for them, well now is their opportunity, let's hope they take it. What a plus for Newbury if we put in a young progressive MP for once.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2017, 03:26 PM

Amen to that!

Posted by: Turin Machine May 2 2017, 07:39 PM

Good luck to him, let's hope he can handle basic maths.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 2 2017, 08:14 PM

Yes like to this idiot: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

There is absolutely no way I can vote for a party that has someone as incompetent as this person.

Posted by: Cognosco May 2 2017, 08:19 PM

I think politicians are like slugs and snails, just what is the point of them?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 2 2017, 09:09 PM

To be fair to Diane Abbott she is not just incompetent. She is also a racist. Sent her son to Private school. And likes a few bungs.Allegedly according to wikipedia. Lovely jubbly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott

Posted by: Turin Machine May 2 2017, 09:28 PM

Which, to be fair, probably qualifies her to be PM.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 2 2017, 09:36 PM

Id vote for labour if I was on benefits and had no intention of ever getting a job. Its a lifestyle choice. Innit. And when the country was bankrupt again. Which it would be after 5 years. We'd all pay.... But if you want a short term max out on the Country credit card. Labours your vote.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 2 2017, 10:49 PM

Last time we hit the skids it wasn't work shy benefit scrounges that caused it, I seem to remember. I also remember the monster raving Tories wanted even more banking deregulation at the time too.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 3 2017, 04:55 AM

Perhaps my memory is failing me? I thought no more boom and bust Gordon Brown was at the helm and Labour had been in power for over 10 years... And he was sensible compared to Corbyn and co. If they got in it I dread to think where we would be in 5 years.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 07:01 AM

Labour will introduce a £10/hour minimum wage and end zero-hours contracts, because it's not fecklessness and apathy that puts tax credit benefits claimants on the bread-line, it's the greed of commerce and industry. Working people deserve dignity, not charity.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 07:29 AM

What's your point about private education? Labour wants state schools to be so good that there is no advantage, socially or educationally, in sending your child to a fee-paying school, but while they're not I'd expect every parent to be putting the welfare of their children first, and if they can afford a private education for their children then good luck to them. Conservatives on the other hand don't want to be taxed to pay for state education because they only care about themselves and they can afford to privately educate their children, but you don't criticise them for that.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 3 2017, 07:54 AM

Probably the sheer hypocrisy,
"Abbott's decision in 2003 to send her son to the private City of London School after criticising colleagues for sending their children to selective schools, which she herself described as "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent", caused controversy and criticism."

No sensible person would argue about wanting the best for their kids, but best not to preach one thing then do another. I think that's the point being made.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2017, 08:05 AM

I realise that, but to imply the problem of bankruptcy comes from the unemployed workshy on benefits, or to employ policy that ignores the root cause is somewhat narrow minded in my view.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 3 2017, 08:05 AM

Problem is, a lot of small businesses (the backbone of British industry) operate on a shoestring, and, with higher business rates hitting some hard, increasing minimum wage will result in some closing down and many more forced to cut staffing levels. The end result being more unemployment. Please stop being silly with all this greed nonsense, a lot of businesses are run by honest working people who, rather than being unemployed again, chose to open a small business to feed their family and by doing so ended up providing jobs for others. Philip Green? **** hole, most business people? Hard workers. Bit more common sense and a bit less political rant would go a long way. ��

Edit,
Zero hours contracts should be abolished, now.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2017, 08:10 AM

Yes,'the world economy' strikes again. At the end of the day, the higher the wages, the fewer the jobs and mechanisation doesn't help matters.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 3 2017, 08:13 AM

I don't think we should ignore the roll of the consumer in all this. We don't see many protesting at the low cost of goods in Amazon or Sports Direct.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 09:26 AM

I agree, and my natural inclination has always been to let the market set wages as I'm strongly inclined to believe as Adam Smith posits (and paraphrasing here) that market regulation will have unintended consequences, but as you say, an unfettered market has no problem paying workers starvation wages so I now feel that it's necessary to regulate in order to guarantee wages that the lowest paid can live on without the charity of the state.

Posted by: On the edge May 3 2017, 12:25 PM

it certainly wasn't the work shy who caused the present economic problem. Down to city greed essentially making false claims - the same crime for which the benefit shysters end up in gaol!

Sure, there are some good small employers, that's the rub; we've been sold out. We don't do high end jobs in UK anymore. At least voting Tory you don't have to worry about your kids future; they won't have one.

I must admit, Madam Abbott is a pretty poor advert for Labour, but look at what the
Tories throw up! They gave us John Major, Dave Mellor, Lord Archer. (Cont p94) .fine body of men!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 03:22 PM

Sorry, but I don't agree with your economics (and I was in business for myself once so I do have some sympathy for your point of view). If your labour costs increase then you pass on those costs to your consumers. If your consumers want your goods and services then they'll pay the new price - they'll have to, because all things being equal every other producer/supplier will have to increase their prices likewise. Of course jobs come and go; look at steel, coal, and docks for example, all now dead industries for one reason or another, but you'd be the first to pillory me if I were to suggest that an industry in decline should be propped up artificially.

The problem with a statutory living wage, or any other ethical regulation for that matter, is when there is no corresponding regulation of imports - mandating a £10/hour living wage so that British workers don't have to live in penury is right enough, but if we don't impose a duty on foreign-made sweat-shop imports then we're simply out-sourcing our labour exploitation and killing our domestic industry.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 3 2017, 05:47 PM

And there's the problem, if you're offering a service, you get to a point where either a, people say, hah, I can do without or b, get it from someone else who may be unregulated, unlicenced or using black market labour. Or if it's a product based business they get it from either somewhere else because it's cheaper (materials, rates, rents etc) or as you say, they buy tat from China. None of which helps the people you put out of work because you couldn't keep going.

I know how it works, I used to chase after business only to have my boss turn down the opportunity because "we need to make 35% or its not worth it". "this only pays 25%". Next thing you know the deals been done by someone who COULD survive on 25% of a m£10 account. After I left the company went bust through lack of turnover. Everyone out on the street.

Posted by: On the edge May 3 2017, 06:00 PM

Well, there you go. You've hit the dilemma of capitalism, it is win/loose, weakest to the wall please.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 07:03 PM

For sure, there will always be unscrupulous employers who try to avoid regulation, but that's not an argument not to regulate, just to regulate effectively. The unregulated foreign imports is however an issue, but that's the problem to solve and now that we're unfettered by the EU it's not an impossible thing to impose such tariffs on imports that don't meet our domestic standards, though it would certainly be handy to have some kind of international certification scheme for employee rights and remuneration in the manner of the rainforest alliance for example.

But remember this is about a £10/hour minimum wage, so the impact on producers/suppliers is only the impact that the marginal cost of raising the wages of the staff below that threshold has on the product/service cost, and that's typically going to be quite a small impact. Some market sectors such as agriculture employ a lot of staff on less than £10/hour, but say seasonal pickers have to be paid an extra £3/hour, that's not going to add 11% to the price of the crop as labour is not going to be the only production costs, and by the time the crop is sold in a shop the increase in the harvesting cost is a tiny fraction of the shop price, although the shop also has to add the cost of paying its shelf-stackers the living wage too, but even so the impact of the living wage is likely to be a fraction of a percent, and that's for a product that depends heavily on minimum-wage staff. Take something like buying a new a car when there's almost no one involved in the sale and manufacture supply chain who's on minimum wage and the £10/hour living wage has no impact at all.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 3 2017, 07:26 PM

But... £10 an hour will just be a starter for "ten". The Unions will strike and want £15 an hour and Corbyn will give in. It will end in tears. Thats the problem when Unions are your paymasters. Anyway its all irrelevant anyway as Corbyn will be out on his ear after the GE. We may even get an electable opposition. You never know.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 3 2017, 07:34 PM

But we won't, just more of the same. We get who the union's want and it ain't in there interests to elect a reasonable labour leader. Just another roaring trot allied to the obnoxious momentum thugs.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 07:36 PM

OK, but what you've done there is to stand up a fanciful scenario and then demolish it. Do you not have any well-grounded objection to paying people enough to live on?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 3 2017, 07:54 PM

I hardly think the Unions striking is a fanciful scenario. I can guarantee it.😂

And I have no objection. Anyone earning more wont need as much income support. Its just how many people will end up unemployed as a result that needs to be calculated and what that will cost.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 3 2017, 08:27 PM

And there you go, we agree. I find the present situation ridiculous whereby the state actually subsidises companies to pay less than a living wage and then tops up the wages with tax-credit benefits - much better just to cut the state interference and allow people the dignity of earning enough to live on.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 3 2017, 08:42 PM

Oh, I agree, totally.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 3 2017, 08:46 PM

To be fair we have been moving towards £10 per hour. No one wants people to be subjugated and poor. But Corbyn is still unelectable because of his ties to the Unions and the incompetent nature of not only him but the people that fill his shadow cabinet. Diane Abbott being a prime example. Her twitter feed is just retweets of morning star articles...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 3 2017, 08:53 PM

I should be a politician. I have managed in one post to get both Simon and Je Suis to agree.😂

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 3 2017, 10:09 PM

Not bent enough.

Posted by: je suis Charlie May 4 2017, 05:32 PM

9.00pm tonight, ITV, Car crash Britain. I think it's a party political on behalf of labour.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2017, 06:16 PM

Whatever floats your boat!