A great result for the Liberal Centrist party in France. Macron is almost certain to win the presidency with the other parties likely to endorse his candidacy to avoid Le Penne winning. Rather a blow for those who hope to see the EU fall apart I would think.
It does make one wonder whether eventually s similar centrist party will emerge in the U.K.
|
>> It does make one wonder whether eventually s similar centrist party will emerge in the
>> U.K.
>>
It would not surprise me, most people in the UK are moderate in their political views, the extremists are a small minority. They just make the most noise.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 24 Apr 17 at 20:31
|
A move to the centre ground will happen if and when Labour ditch Corbyn and elect a centrist leader. The Conservatives, who at the moment can do virtually what they like will be forced back in that direction too. The chances of a brand new party making any impact in this country are pretty slim, I would say.
As for Marcon, how much more certain to win is he than Clinton was in the states? A large scale terrorist attack could soon shift public opinion, well worth considering for ISIS as they'd like nothing better than an anti-immigrant right wing government.
We live in interesting times.
|
One of David Cameron's great successes was to occupy the centre ground hence squeezing out the Lib Dems at the last election.
In recent years the three main parties have all been fairly centrist though Labour have headed left (and wayward) under Corbyn ...
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Mon 24 Apr 17 at 20:32
|
|
The French political system is so vastly different from ours that no parallels can be drawn.
|
|
Well perhaps not directly but in both countries we see the collapse of the extreme left and a degree disillusionment of current polittical parties. In England we have a large proportion of the electorate with Centrist views with no party really reflecting their views apart from perhaps the LibDems. I do feel that perhaps a fairly seismic change in English politics is overdue.
|
Not seen much polling yet for second round but Le Pen, like her father 15 years ago, faces an uphill battle with other candidates endorsing Macron. Interesting piece in Telegraph though showing the East/West divide in France between departements where FN won and those taken by En Marche:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/french-presidential-election-poll-tracker-odds/
Last I heard was that Melonchon (the left candidate) was yet to come out firmly against Le Pen, that could make a difference.
Domestically I'm not convinced it was Cameron's 'centrism' that did for Lib Dems. A lot of their support in 2010 came from people voting LD to keep the tories out. Clegg throwing his lot in with Cameron, while arguably sound for country/economy (compared to a wobbly minority govt) was toxic to large proportion of his own party - including Charlie Kennedy who refused to serve.
|
>> A lot
>> of their support in 2010 came from people voting LD to keep the tories out.
Err no, Everyone wanted Brown out. Everyone thought he was useless.
|
The Grauniad article gives a very good graphical illustration on how votes were cast against the geography of the country.
www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2017/apr/23/french-presidential-election-results-2017-latest
|
|
It's a completely different situation here. The electorate may be largely centralist in sentiment, but we take a broadly centralist path by means of alternating between parties that have outer wings of the left or right. Just because they meet in the middle doesn't mean there's room for a centralist party - it's like angels on a pin head.
|
|
The SNP are right wing extremists disguised as loony lefties, given enough rope they will self destruct.
|
>> The SNP are right wing extremists disguised as loony lefties, given enough rope they will
>> self destruct.
>>
we can but hope
|
|
A bit of wishful thinking there I suspect. As an outsider the SNP seem to be about the most effective party in the country and Nicola Sturgeon is easily a match for Theresa May.
|
>>SNP seem to be about the most effective party in the country
NHS issues, Police in turmoil, education going down the plughole.............Nippy Sweety should get on with the day job @ the super Council in Edinburgh rather than globe trotting to California as she was a few weeks back.
|
>>Nicola Sturgeon is easily a match for Theresa May.
>>
In the context of Scotexit, Nicola Sturgeon has the advantage of being able to make as many promises as she wants without having to be able to deliver any of them.
She is the most irritating politician since Derek Hatton, had the Scots voted leave in 2014 would she now entertain another referendum just in case they had changed their minds?
We'll maybe she would because it would by now surely have become clear to her that Scotexit was not going to be the utopia she presented and the Scottish people would be looking at a whole new form of austerity ...
|
>> In the context of Scotexit, Nicola Sturgeon has the advantage of being able to make
>> as many promises as she wants without having to be able to deliver any of
>> them.
>>
The blaming the Westminster government ploy is wearing thin, the poor state of the public services is snapping at her heels. Most people know she gets shed loads of cash from England and Scotland could not maintain spending without it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 25 Apr 17 at 11:08
|
>> A bit of wishful thinking there I suspect. As an outsider the SNP seem to
>> be about the most effective party in the country and Nicola Sturgeon is easily a
>> match for Theresa May.
>>
L O L of the century!
|
>> A bit of wishful thinking there I suspect. As an outsider the SNP seem to
>> be about the most effective party in the country and Nicola Sturgeon is easily a
>> match for Theresa May.
>>
Only to the faithful up there
Look at her position since the Brexit vote on whether she wants Scotland in our out of it
|
>> Look at her position since the Brexit vote on whether she wants Scotland in our
>> out of it
>>
>>
I have heard from reliable sources that one of the key deciders for May to call the June 2017 election was the riling she got from Sturgeon.
twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/841610785818316802
I was elected as FM on a clear manifesto commitment re #scotref. The PM is not yet elected by anyone.
twitter.com/scotnational/status/789202871065645056
Where's YOUR mandate, Prime Minister?
|
>> I have heard from reliable sources that one of the key deciders for May to
>> call the June 2017 election was the riling she got from Sturgeon.
>>
>>
Let's hope that Sturgeon has shot herself in the foot.
|
I agree with the message but I'm not sure I'd rate Twitter as a reliable source
I really can't imagine Mother Theresa gave that much weight to the thoughts of Nicola, and she;s not been the only person to question the PMs mandate.
|
>> I agree with the message
>>
Which message?
>> but I'm not sure I'd rate Twitter as a reliable
>> source
>>
??
Where did I say twitter was the source?
Time to go back to school, perhaps. ;-)
|
>> Where did I say twitter was the source?
Twitter.com was a clue.
|
>> I have heard from reliable sources that one of the key deciders for May to
>> call the June 2017 election was the riling she got from Sturgeon.
>>
Sorry Brian but I cannot see that. I cannot imagine that TM's reasons for a snap election are not mainly based on A) Labour being all over the floor and B) House of Lords and her own party's constant bickering & niggling which will be a nuisance throughout negotiations if she doesn't try to shut it up now.
Shutting up an annoying we nippy Scots lassie would not have registered on the radar on its own, the opportunity to annoy NS by calling an election was a bonus.
|
>> Sorry Brian but I cannot see that. I cannot imagine that TM's reasons for a
>> snap election
>>
just one of the deciding factors, not the ONLY reason.
|
>> just one of the deciding factors, not the ONLY reason.
>>
not a "key" deciding factor was my point more of an added, while I am at it, bonus
|
|
Perhaps that model held up in the past but the collapse of the Labour Party and the move of the conservatives to the right has left a large part of the electorate effectively homeless. The existing model of Labour and Conservative isn't set in stone.
|
|
I can't see a new party being formed in the UK, but then people in france would have said the same thing a year or so ago. Interesting that 3 out of the 4 best performing candidates were from non traditional parties.
|
>> and the move of the conservatives to the right >>
>>
No, Labour have moved left, the Tories still occupy the centre ground under TM.
|
"No, Labour have moved left, the Tories still occupy the centre ground under TM."
I agree. Anyone who thinks that the current Tory lot is right-wing really ought to get out more.
|
Actually it's quite difficult to see exactly where May's government lies on the political spectrum. All her efforts so far have been directs at leaving the EU which doesn't really give a guide as to where her government is going in other areas. Certainly many centre ground conservatives are apprehensive as to the seeming domination of the right wing in here cabinet although May makes a lot of noises to suggest she is for the hard working family" and the " just about managing" whoever they might be.
The big fear surely for those of a moderate persuasion is that without an effective opposition there will be very little moderation of extreme right views.
|
>>Anyone who thinks that the current Tory lot is right-wing really ought to
>> get out more.
Anyone who thinks there are not right wingers in influential places in the current Tory lot really ought to read more.........
|
>> Anyone who thinks there are not right wingers in influential places in the current Tory
>> lot really ought to read more.........
>>
I always think right wing, and left wing for that matter, are wonderfully confusing terms
What makes someone right wing or left wing
Is belief in private enterprise / ownership a right wing or left wing thing
Is your view on workers rights what makes the difference
Is private hosting / transport / schooling / medicine a right wing thing, is it left wing to oppose all ore any of these?
I do not think we have the sort of right wingers or, with the exception of Jeremy, left wingers we have had for a number of years in positions of power, maybe if you include the unofficial positions of power like the unions / big business / banks / universities etc.
What do you believe makes someone right wing, or left wing for that matter, in any sort of worrying way.?
I worry most about the people on both sides whose political beliefs involve deliberately suppressing people on a political basis whether it is practical and for the general good or not.
|
"Anyone who thinks there are not right wingers in influential places in the current Tory lot really ought to read more........."
Thank you for pointing that out, I would never have guessed. Tell me, Brompt, has the pope got a balcony?
|
|
So your position is, if I understand it correctly is that you agree that there are a lot of right wingers in the May Governement but you dont think that that Government is right wing?
|
>> So your position is, if I understand it correctly is that you agree that there
>> are a lot of right wingers in the May Government but you dont think that
>> that Government is right wing?
>>
That's a perfectly consistent position, and may perhaps be true. Governments everywhere have often included some from either end of the spectrum, but the net positioning of the government depends on the control exercised by the leader.
Sometimes people are included as sops to an influential pressure group, sometimes they are the sneaky infiltration of a squad of loyalists ready to back the leader in an upcoming power struggle. But whatever the reason, it's not automatically true that the apparent composition of a government actually determines it's enacted policies.
And that's in normal times. At present the usual left/right designations don't really fit, because of the Brexit effect. Brexit support doesn't divide on a neat left/right basis, and at the moment it happens that the Tory centre is low on Brexiteers but high in remoaners. So anyone charged, as May is, with delivering Brexit must recruit support from where she can. At the moment that happens to be on the right.
In the Labour party the Brexit division is even more marked. Traditional left has always tended to be anti-EU, sometimes forming an uneasy alliance with Tory right. Corbyn is reported as being very lukewarm on opposition to Brexit, hence his abysmal lack of leadership during the referendum campaign.
But in 5 years time Brexit will be a done deed and forgotten, and politics will revert to more normal patterns.
|
"That's a perfectly consistent position,.............."
As CP says. If it helps, CG, just think of it as 'average' right-wingedness.
|
>> Domestically I'm not convinced it was Cameron's 'centrism' that did for Lib Dems. A lot
>> of their support in 2010 came from people voting LD to keep the tories out.
>>
In 2010 the LD's did OK because Brown was unpopular.
in 2015 the LD's were decimated because Cameron was appealing to the centre ground.
|
Britain has a two party political system and nothing that is happening today gives any indication this will change. Both parties have been written off in the past, Labour after '83 and the Tories post '97. Both reinvented themselves and came back to form governments after a period of regeneration and Labour will do so again, simply out of necessity.
It's how it works here, the Lib Dems, UKIP et al are just a sideshow.
|
Le Pen said she would introduce proportional representation (if she wins). Will that actually help France, based on the different system (compared to UK) they have?
|
>> It's how it works here, the Lib Dems, UKIP et al are just a sideshow.
>>
Spot on. As I said, the centre is a myth. It is merely a small point where the big parties meet.
I've remembered some lines I wrote probably 40 years ago about some other alleged Liberal revival:
The Liberal Party like mortar fills the crack between adjacent bricks:
It may be large, it may be small,
But without the bricks there'd be no gap at all.
|
>>in 2015 the LD's were decimated because Cameron was appealing to the centre ground.
Not helped by the fact they back-tracked on their one key policy they had been banging on about for years when in opposition - the tuition fees.
The centre of politics has always been a dustbin into which one throws an unwanted vote.
|
>>
>>
>> Not helped by the fact they back-tracked on their one key policy they had been
>> banging on about for years when in opposition - the tuition fees.
>>
>>
>>
I'm not by any means a Lib Dem supporter, quite the opposite in fact, but they got unfairly beaten over tuition fees. That was the policy they put forward for a Lib Dem government, but they ended up instead as the very junior partners in a coalition where some of their core policies had to go.
The lesson being of course that the junior partner in such a government will get the blame for everything and the credit for nothing. Potentially holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament is a poison chalice, no one wants an immediate second election so if you refuse to deal and force one you'll get the blame and will be slaughtered in the re-run, if you do your duty and join the lead party you'll get a kicking at the next election anyway.
|
|
The big question is what is the point in the Labour party these days. Of course there will be an opposition to the Tories, they won't be in power for ever. But what will that opposition be? Unclear currently.
|
>> The big question is what is the point in the Labour party these days.
As long as eight people own as much wealth as half the world, here will be a need for the Labour Party. Unfortunately some of them have forgotten what their purpose was.
|
>> As long as eight people own as much wealth as half the world, here will
>> be a need for the Labour Party. Unfortunately some of them have forgotten what their
>> purpose was.
AS most of those 8 people dont live in the UK, there is nothing for the Labour party to do about it.
|
>> As long as eight people own as much wealth as half the world
The stereotyping of people, like rich = bad, poor = good needs to change.
Many rich people give away a lot of money to good causes. On other most poor people believe getting handouts from others is their "right".
This is why Labour party has lost its relevance. Middle class people don't want to pay taxes to feed the bone idles' holidays.
|
So are middle class never bone idle? Or are we stereotyping? :-) As well as generalising...
|
>> AS most of those 8 people don't live in the UK, there is nothing for
>> the Labour party to do about it.
The point stands. Profits flow to capital, not to labour (small L). Redistribution by taxation, crudely, has been replaced by redistribution by lending. Personal/household debt as well as government debt is on a scale of 100% of GDP. Corporate debt is another 100% excluding the financial sector, another 200% (and all our pensions schemes are on the other end of much of that as shareholders). Total UK debt of c. 500%% of GDP is a lot to unwind, or to carry.
If you were to ask how or if I think Labour could/would solve that problem, then I might be stumped. They played their full part in creating it.
The scale of this financial oppression is so big, and mobility of capital so easy, that it's hard to see how a significantly more equitable society can be brought about. But I do know that the Conservatives won't do it. And it's not simple. Corporation tax is now only 7% of government income. Over 60% of government income comes from income tax, NIC, and VAT. Capital taxes are c. 4%.
We are now more of a plutocracy than a democracy. The Conservative party is very much part of that wealthy ruling class and serves its interests. It will look after the interests of the mass of working people only to the extent that it must to retain power and keep the lid on discontent. Margaret Thatcher was better than this lot - I think she really believed we could all be capitalists, the powerful people in the government today are looking after their own. Here endeth today's rant. Discuss, as fluffy would say.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 27 Apr 17 at 11:45
|
Hmm ...
Today's Tories clearly understand the main principals, reducing the size of the state while retaining a social safety net, that the vital public services can only be funded by a successful economy, the route to the latter is to create opportunities for all, that is achieved by encouraging entrepreneurialism, creating an environment where the risk in investment is minimised and lowering the tax burden, in that respect the less well of have been helped massively by the increases in personal allowance since 2010. All of this drives employment and putting people into work has a double effect, they become a net contributor rather than a burden.
|
The country is awash with capital for investment and lending.
I have no figures but as with the new state pension, presumably much of the increase in tax allowances has been offset by reductions in benefits. ,although I applaud the reduction of the income tax burden on those least able to pay it. Of course everybody, rich and poor, benefits from increases in personal allowances and the tax burden on the better off has reduced. It simply has to go up meaningfully.
The Conservatives have done a magnificent job of blaming the poor for the parlous state of the nations finances while refusing to increase tax on the people who can pay, either from massive capital assets (which they invest it seems to a large extent in houses to make more money out of the mass of people) or from high incomes. Let them go elsewhere if they must. Most of them won't. Almost all developed nations have the same problem, a fantastically wealthy group of capitalists, a skint government, and proles crushed by debt.
The rallying call was for austerity to eradicate the deficit (we still have it) and cut public borrowing (it's doubled).
Of course I'm putting one side of an argument here but the idea that the Conservatives are somehow "safer" is false. The system is punishing working people. I want my son, 31 and in a decent job, to have a chance to get out of his crappy flat and aspire to as good a life as I have had - perhaps I have been subsidised too, but we have a biger economy now and I don't think it is an unreasonable aspiration. He will benefit from the bank of Mum and Dad when he is ready, but what about future generations, when the money we have given our children has been extracted from them in taxes that subsidise capital and in mortgage interest charges that go in the same direction?
A working family with a pile of debt voting Conservative are turkeys voting for Christmas. The Tories don't want to do the job of a government, to promote the general welfare, they will lean towards their own kind's financial interests and the party's financial supporters whenever they can get away with it.
|
What Manatee said + 100.
Only quible is that not everybody benefits from rises in personal allowance. I speak to many in average week who pay NI but no tax.
OTOH there a loads of folks like me, who are drawing decent occupational pensions long before state retirement age and pay no NI (except voluntarily to increase state pension).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Apr 17 at 14:17
|
As a slightly balancing view to the previous 2 posters......
The system is not perfect by a long way,
The economy is not perfect by a long way, it has been completely messed up, in my view primarily by the Tories in the 90s and by New Labour who followed them. It was then messed up a little bit more by the coalition who failed totally to grasp the nettle of greed in our society, and the constant demand for lower taxes etc.
But, to get the system right somebody needs to get the economy right, or at least a lot less wrong, first. The money has to come from somewhere, and in a global economy we cannot ban wealth, whether personal or corporate.
And then there is Brexit, however much or little we want it.
On that basis I cannot see either Corbyn's Labour, or the Lib Dem's providing a credible alternative government to the Tories.
They are far from ideal but they are far and away the best of a pretty poor bunch.
Rant over
|
Latest ONS dataset Release date: 25 April 2017
The effects of taxes and benefits on household income
"Income gap narrows between UK's rich and poor."
"After cash benefits and direct taxes, the richest fifth of households had an average disposable income that was around five times that of the poorest fifth (£67,500 and £13,100 per year respectively).
After accounting for all taxes and benefits, including indirect taxes and benefits in kind, in fye 2016, the ratio of final income for the richest fifth of the population to the poorest fifth (£63,300 and £17,200 per year respectively) was further reduced to less than 4 to 1."
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth
|
>>
>> The Conservatives have done a magnificent job of blaming the poor for the parlous state
>> of the nations finances while refusing to increase tax on the people who can pay,
>> either from massive capital assets (which they invest it seems to a large extent in
>> houses to make more money out of the mass of people) or from high incomes.
>>
Ridiculous ! And let them be dis-incentivised so they don't start/grow business and employ people etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
>> Let them go elsewhere if they must.
>>
As per my last point x 10 ...
The Conservatives have done a great job of treading a fine line between austerity, stimulous and maintain services.
|
>> but what about future generations, when the money we
>> have given our children has been extracted from them in taxes that subsidise capital and
>> in mortgage interest charges that go in the same direction?
>>
Utter tosh, I bought my first house at 12% as I recall and it went up to 14% before it fell, I then lost around £8k in negative equity so had to save long and hard to move with little disposable income due to high interest rates.
Despite high property prices it's easier today.
And high property prices are a supply and demand issue and not something that policy can influence greatly (It is though true to say that houses are being built in the wrong places. We are being encouraged to accept 200+ in our village when they are needed more 120 miles away in south west London).
And its the Tories who are proposing increasing the IHT threshold to £1,000,000 ...
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Thu 27 Apr 17 at 15:03
|
In 1997 houses cost 3.6 x wage on average. The multiple is now 7.6, 2016 numbers I think.
Perhaps you have forgotten the demonisation of benefits claimants in the wake of the financial crisis.
I did say it isn't easy, but the money needs to come from those who have it, not from those who are already exsanguinated. Trickle down never worked and never will, for reasons obvious to Marx 100 years ago.
|
Strange these French elections.Le Pen very right wing and this glamour boy who came out of nowhere.
He must have the backing of the European elite to keep it together.She wants a independent France and throw a spanner in the works.
Viva la revolution.>:)
|
>> Perhaps you have forgotten the demonisation of benefits claimants in the wake of the financial crisis.
>>
No, I remember a balanced approach to austerity, while maintaining the safety net, necessary due to the ineptitude of the previous lot.
>> I did say it isn't easy, but the money needs to come from those who
>> have it,>>
No, the money comes from adding value to commodities and labour, providing a product or service and also providing employment, fair taxation etc etc ...
Very, very few people simply "have" money, the vast majority earn it ...
|
>> No, I remember a balanced approach to austerity, while maintaining the safety net, necessary due
>> to the ineptitude of the previous lot.
We've had a safety net since, and indeed before, Beveridge. Calls on it post 2010 bear little if any relationship to ineptitude of the previous lot.
The problem now is the holes in the net are far too big:
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/27/poor-working-families-losses-benefit-cuts-ifs
|
There are safety nets and then there are luxury safety nets.
There was a program on TV the other night about people on benefits who received £27,000 a year and were struggling.
Their food bill was £200 a week!!! Loads of junk food, big tubs of sweets etc.
What really hurt was that I was in my 40s before I took home £27,000 a year (sole breadwinner with 2 kids) and that involved working 60 plus hours a week.
Eldest has just been sent an employment contract to be a junior doctor (finals next month so fingers crossed) and won't be taking home £27,000 a year for several years.
It seems very unfair that benefits are so high and there is no real incentive to get these people off benefits which perhaps they would do if benefits were less generous.
|
>> It seems very unfair that benefits are so high
How many people are on that level of benefits? If the number is low, why can't govt. simply stop the benefit payment?
|
>> >> It seems very unfair that benefits are so high
>>
>> How many people are on that level of benefits? If the number is low, why
>> can't govt. simply stop the benefit payment?
>>
Most people realise that both these on 25k a year benefits and those who cannot feed themselves on benefits are rare examples.
Politicians, however love extremes as they make great cases to "prove" their views
|
>> Politicians, however love extremes as they make great cases to "prove" their views
>>
Yes, that works both ways, the majority of people on benefits are genuine cases though there are no doubt some that are not.
Though also of those who "have money", as Manatee puts it, the vast majority have earned it and provided gainful employment for others on the way, and very few are born into it.
So higher taxes "the money needs to come from those who have it" would dis-incentivise the earners and only gain a relatively small amount from those born into it so would be counter productive.
|
>> How many people are on that level of benefits?
We don't know where these people lived but perhaps 30-35% of the £27k is rent. PLenty parts of UK where market rent for a bog standard 3 bed house is £700+.
A need for education in how to manage money and cook proper meals etc isn't limited to people on benefits.
>> If the number is low, why
>> can't govt. simply stop the benefit payment?
It has, via the benefits cap.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 May 17 at 09:05
|
>> We don't know where these people lived but perhaps 30-35% of the £27k is rent.
>> PLenty parts of UK where market rent for a bog standard 3 bed house is
>> £700+.
Perhaps that is an argument for more council houses to keep rents low.
I personally think that selling off council houses has caused problems with our economy that we are still feeling to this day, including house prices at 7 times average earnings which leads to too much capital being tied up in homes and too little being invested in businesses, infrastructure and jobs.
|
"Very, very few people simply "have" money, the vast majority earn it ..."
Do you really believe that? If you define earn as being give with a financial reward commensurate with their work there are huge disparities. Does the Duke of Westminster "earn" his money. Can the £5 million a year paid to a CEO be describes as fairly earnt? Can someone who has bought a house for £100,000 and sold if for a million be said to have earnt that money.
Perhaps more importantly how much chance does someone at the bottom of the scale, say working for a minimum wage and who is actualy earning his money, have to acquire sufficient to live a modest and secure lifestyle.
|
>> Do you really believe that? If you define earn as being give with a financial
>> reward commensurate with their work there are huge disparities. Does the Duke of >> Westminster "earn"
>> his money. Can the £5 million a year paid to a CEO be describes as
>> fairly earnt? Can someone who has bought a house for £100,000 and sold if for
>> a million be said to have earnt that money.
>>
This is all getting a bit silly, there are a small number of people who have money, the Duke of Westminster is one yes, move on..
House ownership, for the vast majority of people, is not real money as you need somewhere to live most home owners never see any money from it themselves and the only time it can be sensibly taxed is when you die.
>> Perhaps more importantly how much chance does someone at the bottom of the scale, say
>> working for a minimum wage and who is actualy earning his money, have to acquire
>> sufficient to live a modest and secure lifestyle.
>>
For some, maybe not all, how much effort is made to make more than minimum wage? I know it sounds really snobby and arrogant but it can be done. My mother did it in the early 1960s as did many of her generation. I know of others in my own generation who did it in the 80s, I do not see why at least some of the current generation could not do the same.
Some do not have the basic ability, granted, but many do have the ability but lack the wherewithal to take the first step.
I know this is a long post written from a "comfortable middle class" viewpoint but I have seen the other side, it can be done.
|
>> If you define earn as being give with a financial reward commensurate with their work there are huge disparities>>
"If"... You define the parameter and so of course the rest follows logically, but whether the reward is commensurate or not is irrelevant. It is decided by the market. I, too, have seen both sides, having spent two years on pittances before joining the "comfortable middle class" in a better market.
|
Even if everybody was like your mother, do you think they couod all do it? So there would be no shop assistants, warehouse operatives, cleaners, van drivers, council gardeners, refuse collectors? It's the same as saying anybody can be a pop star - for every one that does, there are probably a thousand who are just as talented and hard working who don't make it.
Unless there is full employment and organised labour, the poor will always be poor in a pure market economy, basically because if they can more than enough to clothe and feed themselves and their families for less, there will be someone who will do their jobs for a lower wage. That is what capitalism, untrammelled, is. It is not the kind of society I want to live in.
Nor do we, in our mixed economy. But we are currently nearer to it than we need to be, and we can do better.
This is very basic stuff.
|
>>
>> Unless there is full employment and organised labour, the poor will always be poor in
>> a pure market economy, basically because if they can more than enough to clothe and
>> feed themselves and their families for less, there will be someone who will do their
>> jobs for a lower wage. That is what capitalism, untrammelled, is. It is not the
>> kind of society I want to live in.
>>
>> Nor do we, in our mixed economy. But we are currently nearer to it than
>> we need to be, and we can do better.
>>
>> This is very basic stuff.
>>
It is basic stuff, the piece missing is where does the money come from, it does not come from the 0.0001% of people who's family have owned half of Porkshire for generations, no it comes from the people that take a pound, buy a commodity with it and buy labour with it and turn it into £1.50, adding value by satisfying other's needs, the baker buys flour and sells bread, he does a good job, demand increases and he employs another baker on a fair wage, both pay their taxes and from their taxes the gov support those who are unable to work, etc etc, very basic school stuff.
Though it is an organic, dynamic structure, it cannot be manufactured (no organised labour), rather the conditions need to be created that encourage creativity, and inspire people to strive, to build businesses and employ others, if that is achieved the organism will grow, people will prosper and tax revenues will flow enabling a safety net.
Conditions have to be created and seeds sown, attempts to manufacture an economy and/or society have all failed ...
|
>> This is very basic stuff.
and at a very basic level we probably have a wide range of agreement
But ..
There are some, I think many, who could do more to improve their own lot
There are some who choose not to, a lot of low earners IME are second earners in a family who don't want responsibility & hassle just want a basic wage for a basic job.
There are those who cannot do any better in life but the " pop star" proportion is way off.
We are agreed that the system doesn't work properly, I think where we differ is that you feel there is more wrong with it than I do.
|
>> Unless there is full employment and organised labour,
With organised labour* there is never full employment.
Or the kind of organised labour the UK unions try for anyway.
|
>> Or the kind of organised labour the UK unions try for anyway.
meant to say earlier,
with a globalised economy organised labour for a single country is dead
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 28 Apr 17 at 12:58
|
How will the outcome affect us? While Le Pen's politics may be repugnant in most ways, her
Eurosceptic stance means her victory would strengthen our Brexit negotiating muscle. In knowing this the EU will doubtless turn more vicious against us. Macron has already made his pro-EU determination clear. He has contemptuously described us a US vassal. Quel con! With the equally contemptuous remark by that other "con", Juncker, that English is "losing importance in Europe" this pair of "useful idiots" has provided yet more reason for us to leave.
|
The French Establishment has swallowed years of mutual hate to mobilise against Marine.
They will do all they can to preserve the cosy status quo.
I would love to see her win, as it would surely accelerate the demise of the hateful E.U. wannabee supranational, overweening, bureaucratic state.
All else is secondary, to me.
I may even vote Tory next June if we have a strong Brexiteer Conservative candidate. (I've met and chatted with her and she seems very sound).
|
UKIP and now a fan of Le Pen!
Enough said, as anything else I typed would be subject to immediate deletion.
|
>> UKIP and now a fan of Le Pen!
>>
>> Enough said, as anything else I typed would be subject to immediate deletion.
Funny init. Some persons on here and the French are very very similar. They both profess to be patriotic, both xenophobic, both claim to have etiquette, both mistrust the Germans because of ancient history, both bitter about loss of empire, both overestimate their place in the world, both fundamentally racist. Having just voted for the pro Eu president, the difference is clearly that the French have brains.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 7 May 17 at 22:10
|
>> the difference is clearly that the French have brains....
>>
..a climbing partner of mine once ordered (blind) cerveaux meuniere in a restaurant in France.
I kept stumm...
OK, as you were.......carry on....
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sun 7 May 17 at 22:17
|
>> >> the difference is clearly that the French have brains....
>> >>
>>
>> ..a climbing partner of mine once ordered (blind) cerveaux meuniere in a restaurant in France.
>>
>> I kept stumm...
>>
>> OK, as you were.......carry on....
M****!
Oh thats Andouillette, sorry.
|
|
Love them. Daquise in South Kensington does brains particularly well - with scrambled eggs.
|
Andouillette - The most disgusting food on the planet. I have made the mistake once in my life, and NEVER NEVER AGAIN!
I found online this description - it just about sums up my view!
So, we ordered two "menu of the day." The andouillette arrived. As I cut into the fine fat juicy sausage, I thought to myself "hmm, funny consistency, lots of bitty bits."
I selected a few and raised the fork to my mouth.
Man, it was gross.
My wife was more-or-less gagging too. She did medical training, and commented that she recognised the contents of the sausage instantly from dissections, with her only question being whether it was the small or large intestine.
We had a small disagreement - I thought it smelled strongly of wee, she thought poo.
I've travelled all over Russia, Kazakhstan and parts East and eaten odd things. But this was too much - even with the lost pride in front of a haughty frog waiter, we couldn't get more than two forkfuls in each.
Call me a wimp, whatever you like. No more a55hole sausage for me.
Credit to the original here and to to see the full context www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=273320
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 8 May 17 at 11:05
|
>>I would love to see her win, as it would surely accelerate the demise of the hateful E.U. >>wannabee supranational, overweening, bureaucratic state.
Will you be wishing the same hate filled spite for the USA then, same thing surely, just a little further away or are they OK because they speak the same language and aren't really "Johnny Foreigners"?
Last edited by: Wibble on Sun 7 May 17 at 18:25
|
|
What a bitter little worm you are, Roger.
|
Ah yes the "establishment conspiracy".
It wouldn't be that the majority of the French people actually want to be in the EU and have rather liberal values and don't want a president with far right wing views would it ?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 7 May 17 at 18:43
|
|
Thankfully it looks like she didn't even come close to winning. Still worrying to me that even 35% of the electorate would vote for a fascist party.
|
|
Listening to some of the rhetoric from Farage or Geert Wilders surprising how many fascist about.
|
You lot really do not know what" Fascist" really means, do you?
Snowflakes use it these days to try and shut down opinions with which they do not agree
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 7 May 17 at 20:39
|
Dictatorship, oppression of opposition. Isn't it the far right equivalent of communism? Still has the state in control.
>> Snowflakes use it these days to try and shut down opinions with which they do not agree
There are opinions I don't agree on in many facets of society. Facist opinions in particular.
Maybe you would be more welcome back in Spain ;-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 7 May 17 at 20:42
|
|
We do know what "ignorant", "bitter" and "bigotted" mean though.
|
>> You lot really do not know what" Fascist" really means, do you?
On here I think we do.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 7 May 17 at 20:44
|
Nowadays facism means not agreeing with liberal leftists :-)
|
No there is an actual definition behind Facism.
I watched a programme earlier on Spain. A good series. Got me wondering if Roger went to live in Spain before or after 1975 ;-)
|
>>>No there is an actual definition behind Facism.
What is the definition?
|
>> What is the definition?
The important thing, to me, is 'authoritarian' - i.e. a dictatorship, and the suspension of elections. Nobody seriously suggests that Le Pen would propose that; do they?
Even the BBC's review of her policies fails to identify anything that would be regarded as unpleasantly extreme.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38321401
Anyway, the French have probably condemned Europe to another five years of further decline. The Euro cannot survive, Europe cannot survive the Euro. But struggle on they will.
|
>> Even the BBC's review of her policies fails to identify anything that would be regarded
>> as unpleasantly extreme.
>>
I agree the Le Pen is not as extreme as has been made out though I can fully understand why the French did not elect her, it's quite a relief though also worrying that she polled 30% plus of the vote.
|
|
Does it annoy you? Awwww.
|
>> First fruits of the E.U. placeman, Macron's, victory.
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/theresa-may-vows-fight-emmanuel-macron-tries-scrap-calais-border/
>>
The Calais border is not an EU inspired or controlled agreement, it is strictly a UK/France bi-lateral agreement.
|
Zero! You *know* Woger only reads the headline; don't be confusing him with the text, the actual truth, or details.
He won't or can't, read them, so it won't help.
|
>> I can fully understand why the French did not elect her, it's quite a relief
>> though also worrying that she polled 30% plus of the vote.
>>
66.1% (20,753,797 people) for Macron
33.9% (10,644,118 people) for Le Pen. That makes a lot of people in France to be fascist and/or racist - if some members of this forum are to be believed.
|
33.9% (10,644,118 people) for Le Pen. That makes a lot of people in France to be fascist and/or racist - if some members of this forum are to be believed.
Believe me, certainly around here, people who you would regard as honest, straight forward, practising christians are racist. Just had a a conversation where for the sake of neighbourly relations I had to bite my lip VERY heavily.
|
Yes Sherlock, I take your point but have you taken into consideration how the definition of 'racist' has changed over the years?
I can remember when it was acceptable to say that I felt we were in fear of losing our British identity in our local area due to the amount of foreigners living here without being called racist.
I can't do it now.
It's become the ace card, the whip to crack to end any rational discussion.
It gives a false view of what people are really like but where I live, foreigners who live and work here agree with me....that should tell a tale but it won't stop the people who call me a racist from continuing to do so.
Pat
|
|
I should have made it clear that I was talking about my French neighbours. What was said would have been racist 50 years ago, let alone today. This village is heavy Le Pen country.
|
"the definition of 'racist' has changed over the years?"
Having crossed swords with the National Front back in the 70s, I have a very specific idea of what the word 'racist' actually means. Nowadays it is just a general term of abuse hurled about by the ignorant.
|
>> We do know what "ignorant", "bitter" and "bigotted" mean though.
Know thyself, then.
|
Take a while for you to think that up, did it?
|
Can we not have a discussion without name calling?
Different people can have different opinion. World will be less interesting place if everyone has same opinion.
|
Exactly Movilogo and the reason I gave the two scowly faces shortly after getting up at 01.30 this morning.
.....and promptly went away to a more friendly and respectful forum where people are allowed opinions instead of posting here.
I do wonder if I'm the only one who does that.
Pat
|
|
S'funny that they aren't so irksome with their farty remainiac muckers.
|
Aren't you being just as irksome with that last comment Dog? Let's cut out the silly names
|
>> Let's cut out the silly names
Yep, will do :)
|
>> .....and promptly went away
>> instead of posting here.
>>
Perhaps that's what the grumpy old farts want you to do, thereby ensuring this place dies and their own pub thrives.
|
I think their own pub has already died:)
They are bored with being polite to each other and have to come here to get a reaction....that's why I went away and didn't react!
Don't worry BBP, I'm my own woman and the day I do what anyone else wants me to do will be my last;)
Pat
|
Apologies for thread drift all... but how's Ian doing Pat after the accident. I'm sure a few of us would be interested. I hope he's back to driving without any lasting impact.
On the subject of racism, I think there are a lot of ignorant people who says things that could be construed as racist (maybe they are) but they mean little harm. As a child in south Wales I recall relatives using the term Paki but they didn't mean any offence. Just wrong to say it. That was just an example.
|
He's doing absolutely fine rtj thanks, just not looking forward to the next very windy day.
Finally Scania and the insurance company have agreed to put a new cab on the lorry as opposed to writing it off. The sticking point was that it was only 7 months old and as I understand it, we needed to have the warranty honoured with the repair.
The engine was running for around 5 minutes while it was on it's side but it has been taken apart and found to have no damage at all.
I thought Ian would prefer a new one but he's pleased he's getting it back again.
Pat
|
|
Very pleased to hear he is doing ok Pat
|
I take your point BBP, so never mind the French elections what about ours then?
How are we all going to vote now?
I have to admit I'm all adrift now that UKIP seems to have gone to ground and I really don't know where to put my vote so who has a very good argument to convince me where it should go?
I was sort of resigned to putting it behind Mother Theresa but she has announced (so I'm told) that she's going to make fox hunting legal again.
That, for me totally rules that out, if it's correct.
Come on Rog, Stu, tell me why I should retain my faith in UKIP.
Pat
|
>> Come on Rog, Stu, tell me why I should retain my faith in UKIP.
It's now clear that UKIP was a one trick pony/one man band. Nuttal doesn't seem to know whether he's coming or going and unless there's a remarkable turnaround from the local elections last week they've not got a snowball's of a seat in next parliament.
On foxhunting I believe Theresa May's offer is a free vote. Wonder how many of her own intake on 2015 and 17 will be in favour? Whatever the merits of the 'sport' (and I'm not in favour) it's already taken up far too much parliamentary time. The opportunity cost several more tens of hours on the subject, with Brexit already overloading the timetable, is not remotely justified.
I live in a constituency where a scabby rat in a blue rosette would get 55+% of the vote so my own cross is academic.
Question for anybody wishing May to continue is how on earth you believe a word the woman says. Definitely won't call an early election then does. In spite of admitting a few weeks ago that immigration will need to continue after Brexit she's repeating the utterly implausible promise of immigration in tens of thousands. A figure she knows she can only achieve if she crashes the economy. Compare her rhetoric on speaking for the 'just about managing' with her government's actions, particularly changes to Universal Credit, the benefit cap and Rent Allowances frozen at way below real world numbers.
|
>>
>> >>
>>
>> Question for anybody wishing May to continue is how on earth you believe a word
>> the woman says. Definitely won't call an early election then does. In spite of admitting
>> a few weeks ago that immigration will need to continue after Brexit she's repeating the
>> utterly implausible promise of immigration in tens of thousands. A figure she knows she can
>> only achieve if she crashes the economy. Compare her rhetoric on speaking for the 'just
>> about managing' with her government's actions, particularly changes to Universal Credit, the benefit cap and Rent Allowances frozen at way below real world numbers.
>>
Re the election, a PM is free to change his or her mind as circumstances dictate. Indeed that is an advantage in all matters as opposed to to a dogmatic approach of sticking to a particular line no matter what. She had no reason to "Lie" about calling an election as she would have walked it at any stage since she became PM.
Controlling immigration would not crash the economy as it means letting in who you want when you want them as opposed to an open door policy where all sorts of dubious characters of little worth and sometimes sinister intentions can waltz in. The benefits cap is necessary to end the culture that has been allowed to continue for decades where a considerable number of people regard it as a lifestyle choice. My local hospital contains a high number of immigrant staff doing worthwhile but low skill jobs while a large estate down the road which I have to visit regularly have a large number of able bodied males who spend all day sitting on their backsides drawing benefits.
While we need a large effective opposition to keep a government of any colour honest a Conservative landslide this time will do us all a favour, because it will force the mainstream Labour party to break away from the loonier fringe which now control the party and have no chance of being elected. If Corbyn is forced out or stands down the sixth form idealists and Marxists who joined after Ed's disasterous rule change on electing a leader will saddle us with something similar or even more laughable.
Labour are not just letting themselves down by their state if disarray, they are letting the whole country down.
|
>> . The benefits cap
>> is necessary to end the culture that has been allowed to continue for decades where
>> a considerable number of people regard it as a lifestyle choice.
I've no argument with a system that stops shirkers by a sensible use of stick and carrot.
But as courts have pronounced today the stick has been applied recklessly and in a way which discriminates. Cannot yet find published judgement so have to rely on press reports:
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/22/benefit-cap-lone-parents-under-twos-unlawful-court
My own observation is that cap bears unduly harshly on, other than group in this judgement, those with three or more children (whatever reason), people unexpectedly caring for grandchildren and those in pockets of high cost housing. As well as commute belt for London this covers villages, Cambridge/Peterborough hinterlands etc.
|
The point is that people on housing benefit in effect had more choice about where they lived than people paying their own way, and were in effect receiving more. I for one can't afford to live in Kensington. I live where I do because that is where I could afford when I came here.
That's before you start on the abuse, such as sub-letting of subsidised social housing.
Hard cases etc.
|
>> The point is that people on housing benefit in effect had more choice about where
>> they lived than people paying their own way, and were in effect receiving more.
People working and on low incomes still get housing benefit.
Market rents vary enormously. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) sets limits for private rents for any postcode at levels in lowest quartile of market AND is frozen.
lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx
There are places where LHA , never mind real market rents, plus applicable amount (what law says you need to live on for food, heat, clothes etc) for single parent and three kids exceeds benefit cap.
People with roots/family in (north) Kensington can't be expected to move to Liverpool just 'cos it's cheaper.
|
I expect there are many people who (probably reluctantly) move away from roots/family for any number of reasons - work, to release capital, downsizing, and, at one time in the past, to avoid/escape negative equity.
Sometimes, s*** just happens...
|
>>People with roots/family in (north) Kensington can't be expected to move to Liverpool just 'cos it's cheaper.
Why not?
I have always worked and have most certainly moved to make my life more financially viable? Or do you think that is a sacrifice that only working people need to make?
|
|
I doubt that 25% of people on here are living where their roots are. Including you
|
I doubt that 25% of people on here are living where their roots are. Including
>> you
>>
I wonder if that's true for the wider population? There's the saying that most are born, live and die in the same area, is it true for most? Could be interesting to find out.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 23 Jun 17 at 08:53
|
"People with roots/family in (north) Kensington can't be expected to move to Liverpool just 'cos it's cheaper. "
It why I moved from London to Norwich back in the seventies. I couldn't afford a house for my family in London.
|
>> Question for anybody wishing May to continue is how on earth you believe a word
>> the woman says.
Its easy. The labour party is offering tens and tens of billions of spending, in fact mention it on the doorstep to a party candidate, and The Labour party will be spending ten billion on it the next day.
All funded by no rise on VAT, an income tax cut, and those who earn more 80K are paying for it.
Its complete fairy land economics, and everyone knows it. Corbyn is nothing more that a fantanista Scargill, with a new name. May sounds like a beacon of common sense next to this cess pit.
|
>>
>> Its complete fairy land economics, and everyone knows it. Corbyn is nothing more that a
>> fantanista Scargill, with a new name. May sounds like a beacon of common sense next
>> to this cess pit.
>>
Agree totally!
|
"Definitely won't call an early election then does."
Let's face it Brompt, the poor woman had no chance - first, those inclined to the left criticised her for being an 'unelected' Prime Minister ........ and now they are criticising her for calling an election. She might not be perfect ........ but she's all we've got; being a Realist, I wish her well.
|
>> "Definitely won't call an early election then does."
>>
>> Let's face it Brompt, the poor woman had no chance - first, those inclined to
>> the left criticised her for being an 'unelected' Prime Minister ........ and now they are
>> criticising her for calling an election. She might not be perfect ........ but she's all
>> we've got; being a Realist, I wish her well.
She would have been stupid not to.
1/ She needs a large majority to keep the swivel eyed loons of her own party in check in the upcoming Brexit negotiations
2/ She needs a large Mandate from the country to convince the EU negotiators that she has the them behind her.
3/ Corbyn is an electoral liability, he will get replaced sooner rather than later, so she needs to take advantage of his presence before he goes.
4/ She needs to sort Brexit out without having to worry about fighting an election, so needs a long term under her belt while she does it.
5/ The Scottish woman is bleating about another referendum, based on staying in the EU. IF a large portion of the jocks vote for the tories they are voting to leave the EU, that will dampen her wick a bit.
All the ducks were suddenly in a row, and they wont be like that for long.
|
SQ!
>> All the ducks were suddenly in a row, and they wont be like that for
>> long.
>>
Agree totally!
The Scottish woman is ridiculous, had they voted to leave the UK in 2014 would she now accept a new referendum just to make sure, like hell she would ...
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 11 May 17 at 02:32
|
>>I have to admit I'm all adrift now that UKIP seems to have gone to ground and I really don't know where to put my vote
Same here to a certain extent, although I'd rather cut my head orf with a blunt spoon than vote for either the LibDems or Labour, so that leaves blue or purple, both of which are quite nice colours :)
I somehow don't entirely trust May to dish up the full Brexit, she is/was a Remainer after all, as is Hammond but,
in the final analysis, I want Brexit, so I'll probably end up holding my nose and voting blue.
|
>>I have to admit I'm all adrift now that UKIP seems to have gone to ground and I really
>>don't know where to put my vote so who has a very good argument to convince me where
>>it should go?
That's a very interesting point of view. You followed UKIP because you were desperate to leave Europe. You were prepared to ignore *every* other aspect of policy in order to deliver this; indeed the then leader of UKIP is in favour of foxhunting.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-nigel-farage-shows-2961931
That, however, isn't my point. Now that Brexit has been voted for, presumably you want it to be implemented. You must really want it as it was sufficient for you to vote for a single-issue party previously. Only two people can be Prime Minister on 9 June. One of them will deliver Brexit - for which you were (if I'm right) desperate - the other probably won't.
If you want Brexit, there's only one choice.
As for why you should retain your faith in UKIP, there's no reason whatsoever. It was created to achieve Brexit, it has - subject to a Tory majority on 8 June - now achieved it.
Finally, there's no way May will manage to reverse the ban unless her majority is about 250. Many of her backbenchers are (at best) apathetic, many are actively hostile to hunting. And then there's the House of Lords which would never let a repeal bill through. And the Parliament Act couldn't be used (as it shouldn't have been used in the first place in passing the bill) as the manifesto wouldn't have included a commitment to repeal.
Finally finally... she hasn't promised to make foxhunting legal again; she's just commited to a free vote on the matter. Much as I should like to see the Act repealed, I cannot imagine it will be.
|
>>You followed UKIP because you were desperate to leave Europe. You were prepared to ignore *every* other aspect of policy in order to deliver this; indeed the then leader of UKIP is in favour of foxhunting. <<
Apart from the quote above your post was very informative and I appreciate it Mapmaker.
Sadly it was spoiled by the blind belief that anyone who voted UKIP did so because, and only because, they wanted to leave Europe.
I am sick of explaining that this wasn't so, as are the vast majority of us, so I'm not going to go through it again.
Pat
|
>> Sadly it was spoiled by the blind belief that anyone who voted UKIP did so
>> because, and only because, they wanted to leave Europe.
>>
>> I am sick of explaining that this wasn't so, as are the vast majority of
>> us, so I'm not going to go through it again.
Apart from the fact you spent just as much time saying you wanted to leave Europe. Thats all we b***** got from you. And now you claim that not what you wanted? FFS woman! The Clue was in the name of the party you voted for.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 10 May 17 at 20:03
|
>> I gave the two scowly faces and promptly went away to a more friendly forum...
... where I distributed a liberal portion of scowly faces in order to make it a grumpy place too.
|
I know of no other forum where there is a facility to use thumbs up or scowly faces.
The people on the forums I frequent are perfectly able to say anything to anyone without fear or favour.
However if I do that to one of Mark's posts he is getting the reaction he wants, so far better to give him a silent scowly and walk away whistling satisfaction!
Pat
|
|
I am curious as to how you consider it can be a *silent* scowly if you insist on talking about it? Twice.
|
I was just trying to point out the irony in your feeling that this isn't a friendly forum, and - presuming it to be - thus making things worse with a liberal dose of frowns!
Odd, isn't it. The French wanted an anti-EU president - a majority in the first round having voted to leave (or for a presidential candidate who wanted to, at any rate). But the anti-EU lot ended up with a toxic leader whom nobody could bring themselves to vote for. Dediabolisation having only gone so far.
So a France wanting to leave managed to pick the only potential candidate who had no hope from the beginning.
Much as Clinton managed to push herself forward as the only Democrat who could have lost to Trump.
And the Labour party elected a leader for whom too few want to vote. They could have really made hay out of Brexit by opposing it. As indeed could the Lib Dems, but they have a leader whose name nobody can remember.
|
On the contrary Mappy, I think this is a very friendly forum but just one person spoils it when they need a bit of 'mental stimulation to relieve the boredom'
They won't get it from me, I don't dance to anyone else's tune.
Pat
|
>>I don't dance to anyone else's tune.
You dance to mine. I can make you post in here any time I want. I can determine what you will say, and I can dictate the stance you will take.
No doubt you wish this wasn't true, perhaps you believe it is not true. But before you get too smug, search the forum, look for all those occasions when you have responded because I have said something.
And reflect.
And when you do, know that I am laughing.
|
Oh, and by the way, you'll notice, no doubt, that at no point in this thread have I mentioned racism. Until now, obviously.
|
Delusions of self grandeur....very sad:)
Pat
|
Pat often does respond to Mark and if her responses are predictable it's because his comments are predictable as well. It's called pressing the buttons.
I wasn't going to comment at all in this thread, as it's already shown some of the things I hate about this forum, and I doubt that I shall get any satisfaction from doing so other than knowing I've said what I think is right.
Mark is in one of his obnoxious moods. He isn't always like this and can be pleasant, helpful, self-deprecating and almost humble, though of course he detests humility, as he has told us.
Really, I don't know what he gets out of attacking Pat. The condescension and cruelty implied in his image of himself as the cackling, demonic puppet-master take some beating.
Now, if the moderators had any balls they would delete his comment and mine also.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 10 May 17 at 16:33
|
>> Now, if the moderators had any balls they would delete his comment and mine also.
Sometimes it's far more interesting watching people make asses of themselves, puffing out their chests, willy waving, etc, while we sit back and break out the popcorn.
|
Since we're talking about Mark I have my own theories based on a lifetime of working with men.
I think he is 100% under the thumb at home with a wife who firmly wears the trousers.
The only time he can actually be 'somebody' is when he's hiding behind a keyboard.
I've seen it so many times over the years and this is a typical case.
Pat
|
>>I think he is 100% under the thumb at home with a wife who firmly wears the trousers.
Oh I am way down the pecking order, certainly there are two kittens and two daughters in front of me at least. Even the b***** gardener gets his tea made for him. But under the thumb? Mmm, I don't think so. But then I guess I wouldn't admit it if I was. I probably wouldn't be allowed to.
There are those here and hereabouts who know my wife, no doubt they are sniggering for one reason or another.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 10 May 17 at 20:49
|
"Sometimes it's far more interesting watching people make asses of themselves, puffing out their chests, willy waving, etc, while we sit back and break out the popcorn."
Sorry - I don't think much of that reply. If comments like the one I had in mind are not challenged then they are implicitly condoned. And, as for suggesting unpleasant, personal comments are merely the subject of entertainment, that seems like another let-out.
Yes, of course it's an example of ludicrous behaviour, but it might also be the cause of misery for the person who reads it.
Once again I'm going to quote: "In this site you will be able to discuss all things motoring that you are passionate about. All we ask is that you act in a respectful and courteous manner. We will act to preserve these values to maintain the quality of information and usefulness of this site."
"All we ask is that you act in a respectful and courteous manner. We will act to preserve these values..."
Breaking out the popcorn is presumably not what is meant.
|
FP, you really need to lighten up a bit. Especially when I post something which was tongue in cheek.
And I for one would appreciate not being dictated to about how this site should be moderated. After all said and done, we're the moderators, not you. We will step in as and when necessary. Thank you.
|
>> FP, you really need to lighten up a bit. Especially when I post something which
>> was tongue in cheek.
>>
Fair enough!
>> And I for one would appreciate not being dictated to about how this site should
>> be moderated. After all said and done, we're the moderators, not you. We will step
>> in as and when necessary. Thank you.
>>
VX, you really need to lighten up a bit ;-)
|
"FP, you really need to lighten up a bit. Especially when I post something which was tongue in cheek."
How does "lightening up" come into it? We're talking about offensive posts that are, apparently, treated as entertainment. You want me to say it was so amusing nothing should be done? Or it wasn't really all that offensive?
"And I for one would appreciate not being dictated to about how this site should be moderated. After all said and done, we're the moderators, not you. We will step in as and when necessary. Thank you."
Now you sound personally annoyed, DD. There's nothing personal here. What I did was point out that the published guidelines for the forum don't seem to mean much if they are not enforced. And, as far as I can see, often they are not enforced. You may as well say something along the lines of "This forum is pretty much a free-for-all, but if the moderators occasionally dislike a post for any reason, or none, it will be removed or edited."
Are you going to ban me?
|
>> Are you going to ban me?
What, for having a difference of opinion. Hardly.
Thing is, we can ask people to be respectful and act in a courteous manner. We could go down the old HJ route and INSIST that people do it. But we decided long ago that wasn't the approach to take.
If however some people don't want to behave like grown ups, then other people can see them for what they really are. Should we censor them and hide the fact that they're being silly?
Interesting though, we've got 2 different reporting methods for people to use, but they rarely do get used. So until the mods actually start reading through the forum, we are none the wiser that something has already kicked off. Whilst it appears we aren't actually doing anything about it, more often is the case that we don't actually know.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 11 May 17 at 02:55
|
I totally agree with you FP.
If I recall this isn't the first time Mods have 'questioned' your posts when you've dared to ask that the rules of the forum are adhered to.
Not only that, it implies that you are at fault for asking, which I find totally unfair.
Either the forum has rules or it doesn't and this one does which we are all pointed to when it suits the Mods.
The down side of that is the vast majority of us expect to see those rules used fairly and squarely across the board to each and every one of us..........or not used at all.
Selective moderation is unsuccessful moderation.
Pat
|
>> DIWD, DIWD
>>
Call me thick if you want but I don't understand that at all, care to explain?
Pat
|
Took me a while of staring blankly at it over my coffee....
"Damned If We Do, Damned If We Don't".
|
If that is what it means then the answer is to be decisive and either DO or DON'T, but be consistent and do it across the board to everyone.
Pat
|
>> If that is what it means then the answer is to be decisive and either
>> DO or DON'T, but be consistent and do it across the board to everyone.
In fairness they are, it's a pretty relaxed stance. And it's applied consistently from what I can see.
|
FP, at least be accurate.
I responded to Roger after his particularly bitter post. His belief system is so appalling, and disgusts me at such a fundamental level, that is seems unlikely I will ever stop.
I responded to Pat after she referred to me. She doesn't offend me, mostly because she never says much beyond her two or three stock phrases/points. I don't really understand her obsession with me, but other than not being able to resist poking her with a stick when she gets all pretentious it doesn't particularly interest me either.
Life is particularly level and pleasing at the moment, so I'm not in one of my obnoxious moods.
I note VXFan's comments further down about who the moderator is, and I largely agree with his point. Equally though, I can see yours, particularly as I was in the past bothered about the way that various bigoted, racist, and other offensive posts were allowed to stand. Given that tolerance it would seem likely that my efforts are likely to attract much attention.
Though, I must be honest and say that I am aware that I respond to those parties with absolutely no care or respect. If they are permitted to state their beliefs without hindrance, I see no reason to temper my thoughts about them. Hence my responses to Roger, for example.
Unless I use a bad word of course.
p.s. Do I detest humilty? I guess from your comment I must have said so in the past, but I can't imagine what I was thinking at that time. I don't think I do, though it is often false and frequently pretentious.
|
We are having a special meeting of our branch of UKIP tomorrow night.
There are several "interesting" things - well to us, anyway, up for discussion.
I'm not ducking the question, but once this meeting is out of the way, I'll be happy to give an unvarnished opinion on how I see things, at least from our local perspective, with possibly ,thougts on the wider picture.
|
That would be good Roger, thanks.
Speaking with other Ukip voters I find that most of us feel adrift and a bit let down at the moment.
Despite the naysayers views it wasn't all about immigration and a general feeling that we needed some of their previous broader policies too.
IMHO after Brexit they seem to have missed a huge chance to take forward those policies.
Had they have taken the opportunity to have moved slightly to the right and Nige had not left, then Mrs May would not have been so confident.
Like many others I don't entirely trust Theresa May, and probably will less so, when she is re-elected, to carry out all of her promises.
I will never vote Labour simply because they are hand in pocket with the Unions among other things.
Lib Dems are anti Brexit so that leaves room for a new, slightly right of centre party and to be honest I had expected to see one formed by now.
Pat
|
>> Lib Dems are anti Brexit so that leaves room for a new, slightly right of
>> centre party and to be honest I had expected to see one formed by now.
Seriously? Really? That's the part of the market that's rather crowded by the Tories at the moment. And if the Tories get a much bigger majority then the nutters on the right of the party will become irrelevant and the Tories will be more moderate.
The irony is the more seats the Tories pick up the softer Brexit will be - and FAS's article said it "It may well be that her majority in the Commons will be so large that she will no longer have to concern herself with Brexit hardliners."
medium.com/@20sthredhead/i-translated-that-infamous-german-article-concerning-the-may-juncker-dinner-that-everyones-been-ac5f952b92e
BTW, Pat, I've no idea what else you were voting for UKIP for if not as a single issue to leave the EU.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 11 May 17 at 10:04
|
>> Seriously? Really? That's the part of the market that's rather crowded by the Tories at
>> the moment. >>
The real problem for all other parties is that the Tories hold the centre ground currently, centre right perhaps though centre nonetheless hence Labour elected lefty Corbyn and he is taking them ever further left, the Lib Dems can't really differentiate and UKIP don't have a reason to exist.
|
>>The irony is the more seats the Tories pick up the softer Brexit will be - and FAS's article said it "It may well be that her majority in the Commons will be so large that she will no longer have to concern herself with Brexit hardliners."
In that case then, one can only but heap praise upon Labour and the LibDems for doing their utmost to ensure that a landslide for May doesn't take place.
|
>> In that case then, one can only but heap praise upon Labour and the LibDems
>> for doing their utmost to ensure that a landslide for May doesn't take place.
>>
You really think the leaked Labour Manifesto is not a vote winner for the Tories?
|
>>You really think the leaked Labour Manifesto is not a vote winner for the Tories?
Many voters will like the notion of renationalising? rail, mail, energy, and scrapping tuition fees.
Add that to the LibDems commitment to another EU referendum + increased health spending etc. etc. etc.
|
>> Many voters will like the notion of renationalising? rail, mail, energy, and scrapping tuition fees.
>>
And which particular money tree do they (or you?) think the money will come from to pay for it?
|
>>And which particular money tree do they (or you?) think the money will come from to pay for it?
The same money tree the Conservatives have feasted upon for the last 7 years?
|
>> >>And which particular money tree do they (or you?) think the money will come from
>> to pay for it?
>>
>> The same money tree the Conservatives have feasted upon for the last 7 years?
>>
I am sorry to say though that just demonstrates complete ignorance or a large tongue in cheek, I'll assume the latter re Dog though Corbyn and the Corbynistas come out with that crap without a flinch ...
The only way to pay for anything is via a healthy economy, Labour can't pay for anything by destroying the economy.
|
Any fule can borrow money, Cheeseman: www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/
I agree with the Labour destroying the economy bit [been there, done that]
|
>> Any fule can borrow money, Cheeseman: www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ >>
You're looking at the wrong chart maybe, the amount borrowed year on year has been reducing under the coalition/Tories though it's only once the deficit, the difference between the amount borrowed and the amount paid back, get's to zero that the total borrowing can reduce.
|
|
Howls about the fact that George Osborne added more to Britain’s £1.2 trillion debt pile in his three years as Chancellor than Labour did in thirteen.
|
>> Howls about the fact that George Osborne added more to Britain’s £1.2 trillion debt pile
>> in his three years as Chancellor than Labour did in thirteen.
OK Gideon was Chancellor for six years not three but Hallejulah!
Why are the mainstream media not feasting on that fact?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 May 17 at 20:30
|
>> >>You really think the leaked Labour Manifesto is not a vote winner for the Tories?
>>
>> Many voters will like the notion of renationalising? rail, mail, energy, and scrapping tuition fees.
>>
I dont, and where does the money come from. Do you really want to go back to British Railways of the 70s?
>> Add that to the LibDems commitment to another EU referendum + increased health spending etc.
>> etc. etc.
Ah well you see Those that work will be browned off with the idea of paying more tax for all these spending commitments, and with Brexit comes economic hard times so Labour spending is exactly not whats needed.
|
>> Ah well you see Those that work will be browned off with the idea of
>> paying more tax for all these spending commitments, and with Brexit comes economic hard times
>> so Labour spending is exactly not whats needed.
>>
Running an economy is more akin to running a business than running a household budget.
Businesses often do invest when times are hard, usually because it is cheaper to do so in the long term (cost of materials, labour can be lower).
As someone who could be hit by the increase in tax above certain income thresholds I would be happy to pay for a better NHS (I am privately insured), better schooling and better services.
I have been commuting since the 1990's and whilst there have been improvements, I do think trains were more punctual then and the truth about railways is that they always cost tax payers' money and I would rather it be controlled by an accountable organisation rather than go to feed the profits of private companies.
|
>> Businesses often do invest when times are hard, usually because it is cheaper to do
>> so in the long term (cost of materials, labour can be lower).
Business do not invest money when they rare already overreached on borrowings.
>> I have been commuting since the 1990's and whilst there have been improvements, I do
>> think trains were more punctual then
I have been commuting since 1973 and I can assure you they were not. Trains were late, disgusting old wrecks, when they ran.
>>and the truth about railways is that they always
>> cost tax payers' money and I would rather it be controlled by an accountable organisation
>> rather than go to feed the profits of private companies.
Government spending is not accountable. Unlike private enterprise. Nationalised railways, UK style are excessively loss making and completely inefficient. As for the post office? Nationalise it? What? its a dying organisation that no-one needs.
|
>>Do you really want to go back to British Railways of the 70s?
Not me guv.
>>and with Brexit comes economic hard times
Been reading them tea leaves again?
|
>> Been reading them tea leaves again?
Even Brexiters who claim we will be heading for the gelt at the end of the rainbow said it would be a bumpy road.
But its a price worth paying of course.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 May 17 at 02:08
|
>> Even Brexiters who claim we will be heading for the gelt at the end of
>> the rainbow said it would be a bumpy road.
>>
>> But its a price worth paying of course.
>>
Ask that to someone who loses their job and home because of it!
|
>> Ask that to someone who loses their job and home because of it!
Its a price worth paying
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 May 17 at 02:08
|
>> Its a price worth paying
>>
The world's history is littered with tales of peoples who gave up their economic well-being, and gave up lives even, so that they could be free.
Czech, Slovak, Kroatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Palestine, Kurdistan, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, etc.
Some did that to be free of England's influence (A to Z: Antigua, .... Ireland .... Pakistan ... USA ... Zimbabwe). Scots are the latest example of those trying to be shot of the English.
|
>>But its a price worth paying of course.
I do believe that = short term pain for long term gain, it's a big world out there, and the EU is only part of it.
Still some time to go before we leave though, if we ever do. I reckon we'll end up with a deal like someone on here mentioned once upon a time, not-so long ago - a deal which pleases neither Remainers or Leavers.
Which is why I'm voting Kipperbang.
|
>> >>But its a price worth paying of course.
>>
>> I do believe that = short term pain for long term gain, it's a big
>> world out there, and the EU is only part of it.
You wont be paying, its easy to say that.
|
and the EU is only part of it.
>>
But it is one of the wealthiest and our major trading partner, democratic and broadly sharing out values and only 22 miles away so lets turn our backs on them. Makes perfect sense
|
>>so lets turn our backs on them. Makes perfect sense
Who said anything about turning our backs on our European trading partners, we will most certainly carry on trading with them, in one form or another.
|
>>You wont be paying, its easy to say that.
Your grandchildren will look back and thank those who voted to leave the European Union.
|
|
Well, I haven't got grandchildren, but my children are embarrassed and ashamed of them. They're fed up of trying to explain the idiocy to their classmates and teachers at school.
|
|
i am sure that my grandchildren will really appreciate the loss of freedom to travel and live anywhere in Europe.
|
>> i am sure that my grandchildren will really appreciate the loss of freedom to travel
>> and live anywhere in Europe.
Grandkids still a year or five off but my 15yo neice's contempt for those who may have deprived her of opportunity to travel/study in Europe is palpable.
|
>> Grandkids still a year or five off but my 15yo neice's contempt for those who
>> may have deprived her of opportunity to travel/study in Europe is palpable.
>>
Someone has been feeding her propaganda.
tell her to relax. Wait until facts are established, and then be contemptuous if the scare stories are proved right.
|
>> Someone has been feeding her propaganda.
>>
>> tell her to relax. Wait until facts are established, and then be contemptuous if the
>> scare stories are proved right.
Curse the fools if its right. Damage done by then tho
|
>> Curse the fools if its right. Damage done by then tho
>>
Or thank those with the foresight and courage to choose freedom despite all the fears raised by doom-mongers.
The glass is half full, and getting fuller by the day for England (though not for Scotland, perhaps not for Wales). It may even lead to the early reunification of Ireland! I say early, because the peace agreement allows for "Irish unity if it has the consent of the people North and South", and that will surely come when the birth-control free Catholics outnumber the prophylactic using Protestants.
|
>> i am sure that my grandchildren will really appreciate the loss of freedom to travel
>> and live anywhere in Europe.
>>
My job has given me the chance to travel and work in Europe and the USA extensively. I work in a highly regulated industry and we need licences to operate in most countries. The EU has helped a great deal as countries have had to grant us licences if we met the local criteria.
We have always resisted using subcontractors because they just don't get what we are looking for.
We can forecast the cost of different potential levels of Brexit to our business and if we can't get a licence to operate in the EU or members of our team can't get visas to work then not only will it be a cost to the business but to the individuals as well.
So on a personal level, Brexit presents the real opportunity of job loss to me. I am hoping for a soft Brexit with freedom to travel and existing licences to remain in place.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 11 May 17 at 21:40
|
>> the loss of freedom to travel
>> and live anywhere in Europe.
>>
Have you been feeding them that lie?
|
>> >>You wont be paying, its easy to say that.
>>
>> Your grandchildren will look back and thank those who voted to leave the European Union.
Funnily enough nearly all the younger generation wanted to stay.
Did you ask your kids what they wanted?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 May 17 at 21:11
|
The younger generation lack the knowledge, experience, and wisdom which comes from living in this damn world for 3, 4 or more decades. I can understand their thinking along the lines of being deprived of opportunities to travel or study in Europe, but no one knows what the final outcome of a Brexit deal, if any, will be. Rest assured however, that the Brexit team will strive to get the best deal possible for this country and its people.
One week is a long time in politics, they say, well, two years (almost) is a mighty long time. Emmanuel Macron wants a reformed EU, there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction among other EU member countries, so who knows what the picture will look like come Spring 2019.
|
>> Funnily enough nearly all the younger generation wanted to stay.
>>
Not funnily enough.
Logically so, because they have not experienced living free of EU diktat.
|
>> Not funnily enough.
>>
>> Logically so, because they have not experienced living free of EU diktat.
I'm 57 and never lived under EU 'diktat'. Working together with allies does not qualify as diktat.
|
>> You really think the leaked Labour Manifesto is not a vote winner for the Tories?
>>
Polly Toynbee, a fierce critic of Corbyn until now, has done a U-turn and thinks it is the best manifesto ever.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/leaked-labour-manifesto-cornucopia-delights-tories-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may
What a cornucopia of delights is here. The leaked Labour manifesto is a treasure trove of things that should be done, undoing those things that should never have been done and promising much that could make this country infinitely better for almost everyone.
|
>> Speaking with other Ukip voters I find that most of us feel adrift and a bit let down at the moment
Who could have expected that?
Oh, wait......
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 May 17 at 13:27
|
Mrs May said her politicians did nothing wrong on the news last night with regards to election expenses.
That is not the truth. The CPS said that they did account for expenses incorrectly. What the CPS couldn't do was prove that it was deliberate and therefore subject to prosecution.
The Conservative Party have been fined £70,000 for the incorrect accounting which confirms that they did do something wrong. Other parties were also fined.
It is the little revelations like this that help the electorate find the true mindset of a person and I for one do not like her moral compass because she could have easily just have admitted to a simple bookkeeping error but not a crime which would have been fine.
|
>> Mrs May said her politicians did nothing wrong on the news last night with regards
>> to election expenses.
>>
I saw the full live interview.
She went on to say that error had made in the accounts (by bookkeepers, not by politicians) for which the party had been fined by the Electoral Commission.
A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said the CPS decision not to prosecute was “consistent with that of the commission, which concluded that the Conservative party’s spending return was incomplete and inaccurateâ€.
It said the national return contained spending that should have been recorded locally.
|
This smells a bit though - maybe the Greens doing some manure recylcing
Yesterday's Guardian
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/greens-were-offered-250000-not-to-stand-in-richmond-park-byelection
Today:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/11/greens-face-more-questions-over-250k-offer-not-to-stand-in-byelection
Note:
A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election†through payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 11 May 17 at 16:26
|
>>Do you really want to go back to British Railways of the 70s?
That's not the offer. How about going back to East Coast on either of two occasions the franchisee has 'handed in the keys' ?
|
>> >>Do you really want to go back to British Railways of the 70s?
>>
>> That's not the offer. How about going back to East Coast on either of two
>> occasions the franchisee has 'handed in the keys' ?
Thats not the offer either.
|
>> Note:
>> A clause in the Representation of the People Act says that anyone who “corruptly induces
>> or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election†through
>> payment or the offer of payment is committing an offence.
So far as I can tell the Greens chose not to nominate in the Richmond by-election. Therefore there was no candidate to withdraw and no offence committed even if money had been accepted, which it wasn't.
|
>> So far as I can tell the Greens chose not to nominate in the Richmond
>> by-election. Therefore there was no candidate to withdraw and no offence committed even if money
>> had been accepted, which it wasn't.
>>
From reading the report in the guardian a candidate was nominated but then withdrawn, before the money was offered. Still the whole thing sounds a bit iffy, no harm in someone having a look into it.
|
>> She went on to say that error had made in the accounts (by bookkeepers, not
>> by politicians) for which the party had been fined by the Electoral Commission.
So a case of 'nothing to do with me squire'?
|
>> So a case of 'nothing to do with me squire'?
>>
She's stating a fact. What's wrong with that?
|
>> She's stating a fact. What's wrong with that?
But there are facts and politicians facts.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 May 17 at 02:09
|
>> But there are facts and politicians facts.
>>
But the facts were repeated by the Electoral Commission, the very people who fined the Tories for making the error in the return.
Who is their head? Jenny Watson.
The Spectator describes her thus "chairperson Jenny Watson, as a former women’s rights activist and former member of Liberty and Charter 88, has a strong left-wing influence in her background." Elsewhere, it is claimed that "she is a former Left-wing campaigner dubbed ‘The Modern Militant’ " and that "She lives with Left-wing former leader of Hackney Council".
So I can't imagine her allowing this to be put out unless it was true:
"A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said the CPS decision not to prosecute was “consistent with that of the commission, which concluded that the Conservative party’s spending return was incomplete and inaccurateâ€.
(Watson? An agitator? Name sounds familiar to me)
|
>> >> She went on to say that error had made in the accounts (by bookkeepers,
>> not by politicians) for which the party had been fined by the Electoral Commission.
>> So a case of 'nothing to do with me squire'?
She said what had happened and that there has been punishment?
What should she have said then?
|
>> We are having a special meeting of our branch of UKIP tomorrow night.
>> There are several "interesting" things - well to us, anyway, up for discussion.
>> I'm not ducking the question, but once this meeting is out of the way, I'll
>> be happy to give an unvarnished opinion on how I see things, at least from
>> our local perspective, with possibly, thoughts on the wider picture.
>>
Following up - here and this is public knowledge, having been posted on our branch Facebook page, is what we decided last night. (Not without some agonising, I must say)
I guess that discussions like this have been common in UKIP branches around the country. Many will have taken a different view.
As we have said earlier, UKIP ,Bassetlaw Branch have, because of our local knowledge, decided not to field a candidate in the upcoming June general election.
We have looked carefully at the candidates, now that nominations have closed.
As expected John Mann (Labour) Annette Simpson (Conservative) and Leon Duveen (Liberal Democrat) are on the list and have been joined by Nigel Turner (Independent).
Of these four hopefuls there are only two possible winners, John Mann and Annette Simpson.
Looking at these two, we feel that John Mann was very late in declaring publicly as a “Leave†endorser, although he will claim it has long been his position and will point to historic votes and speeches he has cast, or made, to justify this. Nevertheless, we think his failure to campaign vigorously and speak early for “Leave†casts doubts on his true enthusiasm for that position.
We must remember that he is a career Labour politician and we cannot see him defying a Labour Party whipped vote to water down, or negate completely, the democratic will of the voters as evinced in the referendum last year. With the egregious Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader no arcane possibility can be discounted!
Turning to Annette Simpson, we know from talking to her that she is a staunch supporter of our country leaving the E.U. and, indeed worked hard for “Vote Leave†in the referendum campaign, She lives locally and has been a Bassetlaw District Councillor for some years, so is definitely not a “parachuted-in†Tory place-person.
At the last General Election in 2015, John Mann had a majority of 8843 over the second placed Conservative.
UKIP, with little campaigning, garnered 7865 votes.
Given the projected downturn in Labour voting intentions and the fact that the “Leave†vote in Bassetlaw was around 67% m,it is by no means impossible to unseat John Mann and elect a committed supporter of our leaving the E.U.
Based solely on considerations of her Brexit credentials and by no means subscribing to other Conservative Party manifesto promises, we conclude that we, UKIP Bassetlaw, putting principle above party, wish on this occasion only, ask UKIP and other “Leave†voters to lend your votes to Annette Simpson.
|
>> putting principle above party,
How's that then? You're voting for the Conservatives because your own party is a dead duck that can't even be a***d to try, on the basis that even though you will be supporting all of their policies, you like one of them.
Where's the principle in that? Isn't it quite the opposite?
Ignoring *all* of your principles to follow one policy because of the impotence of your own group.
Thanks though, who cares where the votes come from, just so they come.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 May 17 at 13:06
|
>> >> putting principle above party,
>>
>> How's that then?
Because UKIP only wanted to deliver Brexit and the Tories will do so. So the principle is to vote Tory as that's the best way to achieve the principle, despite the extent to which the party will be disadvantaged (? because it won't return an MP??)
I agree there's a lack of logic somewhere...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 12 May 17 at 13:52
|
>>I agree there's a lack of logic somewhere...<<
I agree with that.
It seems a bit like giving up at the first hurdle to me.
Pat
|
Our branch is the only one in Nottinghamshire not to stand a GE candidate, despite some severe and sustained pressure from the County chairman and his deputy. It was not a question of not having a £500 deposit, or of bottling out. It was a policy decision by the membership.
We have been consistent in putting forward full houses of candidates for county, district and 1 general election since the branch was formed in 2012.
We took a decision that, in this particular constituency, at this particular time, it was better to vote for a committed "Leave" candidate, than a lukewarm one, noted for his emulation of the Vicar of Bray.
Had the Tory candidate been someone such as Anna Soubry, a passionate "Remainer" and general all round unpleasant person, rest assured we would have a UKIP candidate here.
Indeed, had the Labour candidate been someone like Kate Hoey, we would have endorsed Labour!
Our raison d'etre, as a party, has always been to leave the European Union. All else is secondary,
The branch is still here , despite the Party's current woes, in fact both my wife and I have today renewed our UKIP membership.
If Mother Theresa falters in giving us the sort of Brexit UKIP has campaigned for, rest assured we will once again be the cattle prod chivvying the Tories along.
I will be frank, many members are not impressed with the squabbling at the top of the party, the quality of the current leadership, the farce of the Stoke by-election and the lack of urgency, since the Leave vote last year, in formulating a clear way forward, or new policies.
We are promised a re-launch/re-brand or something similar in September of this year.
I admit the Tories have been clever in calling this election; it not only caught a lot of us on the hop, but probably influenced the recent County Council elections, too.
We are not alone: q.v. The Labour Party!
|
Legal definitions to one side, its not really a party anymore, is it?
And you say that if the candidates had been different then you would have fielded a candidate, so what was the reason not to? A lack of money or a lack of balls?
I suspect Pat will be disappointed to hear you declare that UKIP is only about Brexit, she was under the impression that she voted for more than that.
Perhaps that's the problem, perhaps some people hoped for more but myopic, single issue bigots have let them down.
Hence the current chaos. Must be pretty embarassing for you all.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 May 17 at 17:18
|
Thanks Roger, it makes more sense now.
I watched the Party Political Broadcast last night and I must admit I was more impressed with Paul Nuttall than I expected to be.
He handled himself well.
Pat
|
>> He handled himself well.
>>
...I couldn't have used a better euphemism myself........
;-)
|
Today, before the canvassers make their inexorable trek around our little close, I have written to my to the local UKIP branch to deny them right of access to my property. I have also told them that I do not want any of their literature to be posted to me.
I don't want to have to disinfect my path or drive after they walk on it.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 12 May 17 at 18:33
|
|
Just a tad extreme don't you think?
|
|
No doubt filed in the bin with the rest of the junk mail.
|
>> I don't want to have to disinfect my path or drive after they walk on
>> it.
I hope they make a point of calling on you.
:-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 13 May 17 at 04:58
|
>>I hope they make a point of calling on you.
The point is, if they do, then they will be trespassing and potentially committing harassment which is a criminal offence.
IF they do, I will call the police.
|
|
Wouldn't a polite request to leave suffice?
|
>>Wouldn't a polite request to leave suffice?
I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their opinions but in my home and on my property I have at least a little say in who can and can't be in it and the more and more I think about what they have done, what they have caused and what they propose, the more I loathe them. I am truly disgusted by them.
I have never felt so strongly about a political party in the UK before.
|
>>the more and more I think about what they have done, what
>> they have caused and what they propose, the more I loathe them. I am truly
>> disgusted by them.
You mean Brexit? Blame the Conservatives who were so stupid and irresponsible as to call a referendum, the 52% who voted Leave, and the Remain-minded people who stayed at home.
The kippers are entitled to their opinions, as you said earlier.
|
>> >>I hope they make a point of calling on you.
>>
>> The point is, if they do, then they will be trespassing and potentially committing harassment
>> which is a criminal offence.
>>
>> IF they do, I will call the police.
I don't think you should be wasting police time on them. They won't come, but they'll have to listen to you.
|
>> I hope they make a point of calling on you.
A pretty good representation of UKIP's attitude to the opinions and feelings of others there.
Perhaps part of why they bottled from standing in your area; people are beginning to see the true colours.
|
>> Perhaps part of why they bottled from standing in your area; people are beginning to
>> see the true colours.
>>
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally?
As I carefully explained, our local branch decided not to stand an MP in our constituency for very good reasons.
"Bottling out" as you so elegantly put it, does not wash.
It does not take "bottle" to find a proposer, a seconder and eight assentors to stand as a Parliamentary candidate.
It took "bottle" to resist strong and sustained pressure from County level to stand a candidate, but we are a democratic party and our logic was accepted, eventually.
We had the £500 deposit too and a history of standing at all available elections since the branch was formed.
Your visceral hatred of a party which had over 4,000,000 voters at the last general election has warped any logic, or understanding, you might one have had.
|
>>Your visceral hatred of a party
Why would I hate a party? With or without the posh adjectives?
In my opinion its "policies" , if one can call them that, are limited, incomplete and naive. Neither does it have a full suite of policies nor of knowledge, by and large I believe its leadership is inadequate and limited, and some of them are quite laughable. As a body it acquired delusions of adequacy because of recent press coverage. I think the party is risible.
That's why I wouldn't vote for it. But clearly many people do and therefore must quite significantly disagree with me. Which is kind of how its supposed to work.
No doubt many, perhaps most, of the party's supporters are ordinary, pleasant and reasonable people who simply have a different outlook, a different belief system, or a different opinion to me.
And then there are people like you. Bigotted, deluded and bitter. Who run away from an election that they could not possible win and then try to justify it as putting principle in front of party.
Even letting down your own "County level" who expected your support.
Pathetic. And cowardly.
If you want to spin that, you'll have to get a lot smarter than you appear to be.
p.s. I think you're supposed to be ignoring me.
|
>>I don't want to have to disinfect my path or drive after they walk on it.
Quite right zippo, I feel exactly the same way about Labour and the Limp Dems.
|
Political activists up your front path are better than these, just!
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4496514/What-mess-Hilariously-mucky-dogs-play-mud.html
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 12 May 17 at 20:28
|
>>Political activists up your front path are better than these, just!
>>www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4496514/What-mess-Hilariously-mucky-dogs-play-mud.html
Crikey! .. reminds of back in the 80's when we had an orange and white roan Cocker called ... Marmalade.
I'd bathe him on Saturday, then take him to Hastings on Sunday morning where he would leap into the first muddy puddle he could find.
|
>> >>I don't want to have to disinfect my path or drive after they walk on
>> it.
>>
>> Quite right zippo, I feel exactly the same way about Labour and the Limp Dems.
Personally I feel that way about most politicians of any party.
However, the people out actually tamping the pathways are, I think, far more reasonable and genuine people just following what they think they believe.
|
>> Today, before the canvassers make their inexorable trek around our little close, I have written
>> to my to the local UKIP branch to deny them right of access to my
>> property. I have also told them that I do not want any of their literature
>> to be posted to me.
Canvassing is about identifying your supporters and getting them to the polling station on election day.
If you make it clear you're not touching UKIP (or libdem, tory labour) with someone else's barge-pole then you're unlikely to be bothered.
A discreet poster for the Monster Raving Loony party should stop others from wandering up your garden path.
|
Quite see your point Zippy, but perhaps you could take one for the team and let them waste their time with you to keep them aways from others more susceptible to their brand of politics.
|
How silly Zippy.
I think you should be more concerned about the 3,881,099 voters who voted for UKIP in 2015 and where they will put their vote in a few weeks time.
It is these who will determine your future as you see it, not the canvassers walking up your path.
Pat
|
Zippy has been taking lessons on how to be gratuitously offensive from a master in the subject, located in a certain South American country.
See - I can do it, too.
I don't (mostly).
|
>> Zippy has been taking lessons on how to be gratuitously offensive
Yeah, you best go put a burning cross in his garden tonight
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 14 May 17 at 10:30
|
>>I don't want to have to disinfect my path or drive after they walk on it<<
I remember a colleague of mine saying exactly the same thing to the local Tory party during the 1970 general election campaign.
Plus ca change...
|
French Elections - Old Navy
