|
24 Apr 15 - 04:43 PM (#3703888) Subject: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich i find it quite interesting. could we possibly have a discussion about it without it descending ito the usual abuse? for what it's worth it looks to me as if the unionist parties are keen to get rid of scotland. only last september it was all -'please stay with us we love and value you' etc. now the scots are dangerous, traitorous etc. and that nicola sturgeon seems like a perfectly decent middle of the road sort of politician - why the hatred? i've now given up on reasons to give labour one last chance |
|
24 Apr 15 - 04:48 PM (#3703890) Subject: RE: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich sorry folks, this should probably be in the general discussion section but i have no idea how to move it
|
|
24 Apr 15 - 05:23 PM (#3703896) Subject: RE: election uk From: Steve Shaw I'm sure somebody'll move it. Vote Tory you'll get Tory. Vote SNP you'll get Tory. Here in the Westcountry, if you live in a Tory/LibDem marginal, like I do, vote anything other than LibDem you'll get Tory. Vote UKIP and you are living proof that (a) democracy doesn't work, or (b) you are either pig-ignorant in every aspect of your miserable life as well as being a racist xenophobe, or (c) you need to grow up. I have one principle only when it comes to this election, and that is that the bloody Tories absolutely must not get in again. I would not vote BNP or EDL to achieve that, but I'd do almost anything else. |
|
24 Apr 15 - 06:07 PM (#3703901) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Joe Offer In many ways, the UK parliamentary system seems so much more efficient than the system we have in the U.S. In the UK, it seems that most times the majority rules - and then the majority mostly gets its way. And if the majority changes, so does policy. In U.S. politics, there are no straight lines. Maybe that's an advantage, though. For change to take place, it has to be supported by a number of disagreeing factions. That doesn't happen very often, so abrupt change doesn't happen in the U.S. very often. Not sure if that's good or bad - but it's different. -Joe- |
|
24 Apr 15 - 07:36 PM (#3703928) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Labour versus Tories?......this is completely outdated as the "working class" as we once knew it no longer exits. The poor are now a nuisance, tolerated by a system constructed on the foundations of inequality, not equality. Anyone who thinks the present system can be changed by a electing a government with a different name, must have severely impaired memory banks. In Scotland the SNP are about to sweep the corrupt Westminster elite from power and start to construct a new society where everyone will be required to contribute, no one will be able to claim "entitlement" without due cause. Our social history is a disgraceful litany of youth unemployment, ill health, and the status of second class citizens in our own country. All this is about to change ...and the change will not be painless. I shall vote SNP, though I believe many of their espoused policies are wrong and involve playing politics, simply to gain the votes of those with no understanding of reality. Should the rest of the UK be afraid?.....probably, but c'est la vie.....eh no?? |
|
24 Apr 15 - 08:12 PM (#3703931) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Hmm. Anyone got any opinions worth listening to? |
|
24 Apr 15 - 11:26 PM (#3703955) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Damn!.....Politics back in the B.S. section??!!?? Quick!..Call the tyrants! GfS |
|
25 Apr 15 - 02:54 AM (#3703969) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich i don't really get this 'vote snp and you get the tories' it looks likely there will be a large group of snp at westminster and they will -as they should-try to make their presence felt. were labour to accept that they have got things wrong in scotland (particularly in working with tories) but are set to be in a position to form a government with snp support, they could say -we have got differences but have many things in common, let's see what we can do together to try and make a fairer society. of course it would annoy murdoch and the mail and cameron and osborne (so worth doing in itself) labour could get a load of credit in the rest of england and wales by standing above the pathetic and embarrassing westminster squabbling. the stoking of anti-scottish sentiment is dangerous and cynical - if it is successful it will lead to the break up of the union far quicker than the snp could have hoped for. (i walk in slight trepidation of when the tyrants wake up......) |
|
25 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM (#3703977) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod In Manchester, where I live, something curious is happening. My house is in a fairly prosperous, middle class area and many windows sport 'Vote Labour' posters. Meanwhile the windows of a nearby council estate are largely adorned by 'Vote Lib-Dem' posters (!) Manchester is largely a Labour city (the Tories are nowhere). Manchester City Council is completely dominated by Labour and I find them to be smug and autocratic. They appear to be mainly focussed on courting Big Business and property developers. On the other hand we have had a LibDem MP for the last 10 years and he has been very hard-working and active in the community. We did, until recently, have a handful of LibDem councillors and they too were very active and responsive to peoples' needs (didn't stop them from losing their seats though - just as our MP will probably lose his). Recently, I came across a quote about Jeremy Clarkson (stay with me!). He was described as a "virtue signifier" i.e. it is now obligatory to condemn JC in any conversation in order to show how virtuous (and unlike JC) you are. I suddenly realised that all those 'Vote Labour' posters, in middle class Manchester windows, are virtue signifiers! The poster displayers fondly imagine that Labour stands for equality, social justice etc., etc. - which shows that the displayers are 'virtuous' - whilst wilfully blinding themselves to the fact that Labour is now a 'pale mauve', centre right, neo-liberal party. I'm not a member of any political party, by the way. I hate the Tories as much as anyone. If I thought that I could get away with it, I would set fire to the Tory party. But if the Labour party was alight, I wouldn't piss on it to put it out! In my opinion, all of the main parties have 19th century ideologies, now deeply corrupted by neo-liberalism. Note how, during this campaign, none of them have mentioned the state of the environment - the most overwhelming, urgent and desperate set of problems of modern times. We desperately need 21st century politicians who will put the environment at the forefront of everything! |
|
25 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM (#3703990) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Always bemused by self interest. There seems, listening to the radio etc, a theme of "I can vote for what I get best out of it" followed by "the other lot have no right voting for their own best interest." I'm voting Labour but I personally would be far better off under the Tories. Mind you, that isn't to say I have much confidence in them. Ed Balls seems incapable of grasping the brief he has as a shadow and gives George Osborn carte blanche to tell fibs about his recovery. The truth of course being that debt has increased under this government and the real GDP has fallen. Still, as incompetent as they are, ministers can only bugger things up so far and the system pulls back the more silly decisions, as it always has. Labour will always think more about the reason for having a public purse in the first place and that is good enough for me, I suppose. That said, the local Tory MP has been visible, campaigning for building up local infrastructure, jobs and community issues and if he had a red rosette rather than a blue one, I would feel far happier. The labour candidate only mentions two towns in the constituency, both 20 miles from here and she has nothing whatsoever in her marketing about the 25,000 people over our way she wishes to represent. But you don't vote for them. You vote for Cameron's death wish in Europe which even he doesn't support, or Milliband's lack of statesmanship. If Labour are supported by SNP, I wouldn't be too perturbed. Devolution Max is on the books anyway so there is nothing she can hold to ransom, and SNP's inclusive, liberal, left leaning equality driven agenda is just a Labour left view anyway. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 04:58 AM (#3703995) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton It will take a lot more than a mythical "inclusive, liberal, left leaning, equality driven agenda", to make an independent Scotland a success.......a large dose of reality will be required, a strong wind to clear the smoke, cuts in immigration rates, a proper scheme to make our young people employable, and give them the ability to earn wages which allow for some sort of fulfilling life. This will probably mean cuts in living standards for the fortunate pension fuelled middle class....or those who have not already deserted for Sunny Spain. Time to leave "self" out of the equation and start to think on the lives we bequeath to our children and grandchildren. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 05:06 AM (#3703999) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket So, as SNP aren't to your taste, who are you thinking of voting for? An excellent report on BBC Radio 4 the over week, where Sturgeon's success was analysed. Clare Adamson, one of their candidates, said that the urge to deliver an independent Scotland means some people support SNP who neither know nor care for their policies. She was asked by the reporter if this troubled her, and she said yes. She said that some people are voting SNP for all the wrong reasons, and that SNP are all about prosperity through equality, a liberal approach to social issues and attracting inward investment. She said anyone thinking otherwise were deluding themselves. I bet you can't think why I started chuckling to myself. Best she got back to her knitting eh Alex? |
|
25 Apr 15 - 05:32 AM (#3704012) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton "prosperity through equality".....is an oxymoron.....in this type of society. ;0) YOU MOST STOP TAKING WHAT POLITICIANS SAY, LITERALLY. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 05:49 AM (#3704017) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome "prosperity through equality".....is an oxymoron How so? |
|
25 Apr 15 - 07:03 AM (#3704033) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw don't really get this 'vote snp and you get the tories' It's simple arithmetic. If the polls are right and the SNP get all those Scottish Labour seats, Cameron gets the largest number of seats and, as the incumbent, get the first and best shout. If Labour try to form a government with considerably fewer seats than the Tories (it's my guess that they won't even get a sniff at that in any case), they'll collapse within weeks, SNP or no. The SNP is very strong at the moment and will not want to be seen to be propping up a lame duck. So, unless the polls shift somewhat radically, a great big SNP presence means, at best, another election sharpish or, at worst, another five years of Toryism. Take yer pick. But vote Labour! |
|
25 Apr 15 - 07:52 AM (#3704040) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Sorry, this is swatting flies. I don't know whether to respond or not to Akenaton's irrational post in capitals there. You see, Akenaton claims to be a member of a political party that stands for everything he despises. So in theory, unless he resigns, I can hold him to account for supporting their policies, including their clear equality agenda in the manifesto. So, Akenaton. How are you going to ensure LBTG equality and on other matters, encourage immigration to fill the 10% of hospital consultant posts? How do you suggest enforcing your removal of homophobic discrimination in "every walk of life"? How are you going to provide tax incentives for multi national companies to set up in Scotland and at the same time guarantee high wages and rights for their employees? How about fining churches that discriminate against gay people wishing to marry there, on account of being Christians residing in their parish? How are you going to ensure the CofE clause isn't used in court by CofS? The left footers, mosques? To be fair, I never have taken the disgusting seedy old man seriously but there may be some out there trying to find a point he doesn't have nor understand, judging by his posts. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 08:53 AM (#3704053) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Stu We're off again. Sigh. I live in Tory safe seat so my vote is virtually worthless, except . . . as we know with our first past the post voting system the result might not reflect the popular vote. So it's still worth voting for your favoured candidate as in these analyses all votes count. For me personally, I have no idea who to vote for. Certainly not the anti-science conning kippers. Not the LibDums for their cynical use of the student vote in the last election and their being complicit on the NHS stitch-up. The greens possibly, and perhaps Labour as Ed is a socialist and pisses of the perfectly-coiffured middle classes of urban England. Truth is, if it looked like being an Labour-SNP coalition I'd be happy. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 09:03 AM (#3704056) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw I honestly don't think there's any chance of that, even if the numbers point to it. A very popular SNP in its ascendancy would not wish to be associated for long with a Labour rump which wasn't even the largest party. I hope that disenchanted Scottish Labour voters aren't hoping for a coalition, because, if they vote SNP in large enough numbers, the Tories get the largest number of seats and they will just carry on. They will be able to blame all the smaller parties in the event of a no-confidence motion for forcing a second election and they will waltz back into power in October, very likely with Boris at the helm. Vote SNP, get the Tories, get real. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 10:20 AM (#3704070) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I think we must be brothers separated at birth, Stu :-) My situation to a tee! Steve, I am not sure about the picture you paint. It could well happen that whoever forms the government will want to stay in power even if the minority parties can join the opposition and vote them down on certain issues that affect social and economic equality. If that does happen I see the minority parties being a stabilising factor, as the LibDems should have been. I think the SNP would make a far better job of ensuring neither big party gets away with anything too radical than the LDs ever did. OK, I know it is not likely but we can live in hope. Or die in Clay Cross as Musket says... |
|
25 Apr 15 - 10:39 AM (#3704071) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity DtG: ""prosperity through equality".....is an oxymoron How so?" Easy. Think of it in musical terms, for example. You are in a band which is pretty good...except for one of the players, who really sucks. Does that person need to practice more and work their asses off to keep up with the other players ...or do the other players have to play down, and not up to potential, to compensate?..Do they all equally share the pay?...but not the effort??..or ability?? Musket: "So, Akenaton. How are you going to ensure LBTG equality and on other matters, encourage immigration to fill the 10% of hospital consultant posts?" Ever considered by ability???...instead of compensating them, and giving them a job based on abilities(especially in a hospital), rather than filling some sort of lame quota, based on their behavioral patterns????...and want a job based on their whining??? GfS |
|
25 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM (#3704079) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome You are in a band which is pretty good...except for one of the players, who really sucks. WTF has that got to do with equality? Equality means equal pay for equal work. The one who sucks has obviously not done equal work. Does that person need to practice more and work their asses off to keep up with the other players To fucking true he should. Either that or piss off. Pretty much like your lame efforts, Goofus. You need more practice but please do it in private and stop annoying the grown ups. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 11:09 AM (#3704086) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Here's a stick Goofus. Now run and catch the wrong end of it. I'm about as resigned as Stu and would be comfortable with that outcome in a small way but the maths Steve refers to are real. I think it odd that SNP wish to support a Labour government in Westminster but are willing to risk a Tory majority government by attracting Labour leaning voters. To date, despite the well meaning liberal leaning equality and inward investment ideas, they have been far better at doing nothing in Scotland so they can blame Westminster rather than discharging their duties. Perhaps they need to show what they have actually done whilst they have had power and money to weild it? |
|
25 Apr 15 - 11:28 AM (#3704092) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Don't be puzzled Team Musket, the SNP want INDEPENDENCE, the real policies will be brought forward after that is achieved .....and sorry, but LBGL "rights" will be far down the wish list. They are of no relative importance other than as an electioneering gimmick, to keep the slavering media quiet. On immigration we must start immediately on getting our young people off derisory benefits and into useful employment there is absolutely no reason why our own people cannot run our own public services....it will be good for them and good for our nation. Out of warmongering NATO, Out of the meddling EU. Removal of WMDs from our soil. Control of our borders and laws. Stand on our own feet, make our own mistakes and successes. The SNP will use Westminster as a platform to obtain what they want.......we must fight fire WITH fire. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 12:27 PM (#3704104) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# "The SNP will use Westminster as a platform to obtain what they want.......we must fight fire WITH fire." That is always dangerous. Small wind shifts can cause wide and unwelcome consequences. Backfires only work when the wind's in one's favour. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 12:58 PM (#3704111) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket So what are the real policies then? Has anyone told Sturgeon what they are? When you aren't being bigoted, you give good entertainment. Can you do it wearing a red nose? How about a Russ Abbott wig and kilt? SNP stand for prosperity through equality, and their leader said her finest moment was being in the house when the gay marriage bill was passed. If you are saying SNP are a set of liars with a hidden agenda, I suggest you stop embarrassing them. No. Carry on. Labour need the votes. Do you vote? How about tie your shoe laces? 😂😂😂👬 |
|
25 Apr 15 - 04:18 PM (#3704145) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity #: "Small wind shifts can cause wide and unwelcome consequences. Backfires only work when the wind's in one's favour." True....and that being said, wouldn't it be 'different' IF some of the politicians were as ABLE to represent the people. rather than being 'elected' by smooth talking, and very limited ABILITIES to represent the people, rather than ramming through agendas to the highest bidder?? As it is now, we all have the best politicians money can buy!!!...and that includes all the 'special interests groups' whose agendas are well hidden from the voters!!! Voting for a candidate, based solely on their race creed or color...or even who, they wish to have sex with, or how they prefer their sex is completely asinine! ...and as so far as equal pay for their 'representation'...does that include bribes, too??? GfS |
|
25 Apr 15 - 06:08 PM (#3704155) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Team Musket, you seem to have some notion of what "prosperity through equality" actually means, can you explain it to the membership? Bear in mind that in this economic system, prosperity belongs to the rich and is achieved through inequality, such as cheap immigrant labour, derisory benefits and food banks to keep our own people alive It looks to me very like one of the soundbites or slogans that all politicians use...haven't you noticed? You seem to have no idea just how the political class operates...the only time you know that they are lying is when they open their mouths. If the policies espoused by Mss Sturgeon were to be put into practice after independence we would end up with the Scottish version of the hated New Labour......that is not going to happen, so relax, you will have something to whine about for many years to come. |
|
25 Apr 15 - 09:05 PM (#3704183) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# "this economic system, prosperity belongs to the rich and is achieved through inequality, such as cheap immigrant labour, derisory benefits and food banks to keep our own people alive" Hear, hear! |
|
26 Apr 15 - 02:25 AM (#3704197) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn Look the SNP attract people of all persuasions and beliefs because of their long term goal of independence. That is self evident. However I do not feel that they are not serious about their other ideals etc. You just need to take a quick look down their list of "responsibilities and rights of membership" to see that they support gay rights. 6. Every member has a responsibility not to discriminate in his or her conduct on the ground of race, colour, gender, religious belief or non belief or sexual orientation. As to the original question. Alchmelvich is right. The stance from especially the Tories, Lib Dems and much of the unionist media makes no sense. We are told in the Telegraph now that a Labour gvt bolstered by SNP support would have no 'political legitimacy'. That is an absurd thing to suggest. Yes any party can choose who it would and wouldn't want to work with but it is a different thing entirely to suggest there would be no political legitimacy if one particular party were included. If a party, coalition of parties, or a grouping of parties hold a majority of seats then that gives them political legitimacy. Tis how it works! David Cameron was telling Scots prior to last year's referendum that we were better together; that we were loved and that we shouldn't leave the UK because we could lead the UK. Now we are told by both him, sections of his party, and sections of the media that our prospective elected members have no legitimacy!!! So what they appear to have meant was we are better together and loved if we vote and think the same way as England but if not we should eat our corn flakes, get on the back of the bus, and shut up! |
|
26 Apr 15 - 02:56 AM (#3704200) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn As to how SNP success affects the figures as a whole then it isn't just about how many seats Labour would get. A fall off in SNP would indeed give Labour some more seats but it would also possibly give a potential renewal of the present coalition more seats. The Lib Dems could potentially (according to the polls) lose 10 of their 11 Scottish seats to the SNP. That could be the difference between the coalition gaining another majority or not. So the spin that a vote for SNP is a vote for the Tories doesn't really hold.. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:06 AM (#3704201) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket So if SNP are lying, who should normal people in Scotland vote for? Sturgeon makes it quite clear that this election is about running Holyrood and representing in Westminster as per the manifesto and has nothing to do with any past or future independence debate. Yes Allan, the independence aim did attract people wishing independence regardless of their political views. However, SNP are about the SNP manifesto and running government under the system the people of Scotland decided, ie devolved powers under The UK. So, as SNP are a liberal left leaning party based on prosperity through equality, I merely enquired who one of their alleged members will be voting for? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:30 AM (#3704203) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn Musket my post was aimed at Ake who seemed to say that the SNP did not really mean what they say about the rights of gays etc or at least that those types of issues are way down on their list. At least i think that is what was being said. I don't agree with that. And yes you are right in that this election is not about independence. That is the whole point. Scotland is part of the union and therefore the votes of Scots are just as 'politically legitimate" as the votes of anyone else. Some sections of the London press seem to have a bit of a problem grasping that. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM (#3704214) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod Stu writes: "For me personally, I have no idea who to vote for ... The greens possibly, and perhaps Labour as Ed is a socialist and pisses of the perfectly-coiffured middle classes of urban England." He certainly doesn't piss off the "perfectly-coiffured middle classes" of Manchester (and probably other northern cities too)! They all think that the sun shines out of his bottom! They all fool themselves into fondly imagining that Labour still represents equality and social justice - even though our completely Labour dominated town hall plainly demonstrates that it doesn't (it represents Big Business - just like the Tories). If you want to know what Labour is really all about, come and live in Manchester for a year. Having said all that, under first-past-the-post, Labour probably represents the least worst option. What a dismal state of affairs! |
|
26 Apr 15 - 05:50 AM (#3704216) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton You forget Allan, that Scotland, especially rural Scotland is an extremely socially conservative nation. For the independence campaign to succeed, we need to take all shades of social opinion with us, we must be "all things to all men". At present this demands the courting of the UK media.....you are politically "savvy", you understand the political class, after independence there will be massive obstacles to overcome, not least the situation regarding Scottish youth and how to make the country seem fair to them. The issue of homosexual rights has already been addressed, the behaviour has long been decriminalised...quite rightly, and at present they have more legal rights than heteros. Homosexual "marriage" in church is still under review, but is of no relative importance, as it affects only a tiny minority of a tiny minority.......get real and focus on the big problems which are being cooked up right now by the Great Alliance of UK Labour, Tory,and "Liberal". There is no doubt in my mind, that the Scottish people will be marginalised, threatened, and punished by an alliance of Westminster parties for having the impudence to institute democracy. "This is not the beginning of the end...but the end of the beginning." ;0) slainte! |
|
26 Apr 15 - 06:07 AM (#3704217) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw at present they have more legal rights than heteros. Pure fiction. However, don't let the truth get in the way of your prejudices. You don't usually. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 06:14 AM (#3704218) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket What is"marriage"? What is under review? Are the moderators going to delete homophobic hate lies or delete those who question it as usual? I don't know which is worse, Akenaton's puerile mind or Mudcat's support of bigotry? Mind you, keep the bit where he reckons SNP are lying about what they stand for in order to impress the media. Gives us all a chuckle. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 06:35 AM (#3704223) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Not fiction Steve, they have civil union, which is not available to heteros. Team Musket.....all politicians lie....why does this surprise you? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 07:06 AM (#3704228) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw And why do you think that gay people can have civil partnerships? Because they were not allowed to marry until recently, that's why. That's all they could have. Cor, bet they felt privileged. A second-class setup for second-class citizens, thankfully a situation (which, oddly, you yourself seem to favour) now swept away. No thanks to the bigots who oppose gay marriage, though, eh? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 07:55 AM (#3704236) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Civil Partnership was and is denied to people such as cohabiting siblings, to whom it would be advantageous. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 08:02 AM (#3704240) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Ok, so let's fight for it. But do spare us the bullshit that it somehow represented privilege for gay people, shat on for centuries and still shat on here by some at every opportunity. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 08:21 AM (#3704244) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Nothing to fight about Steve. Ake made a fairly trivial point, but he was right about it. You called it "pure fiction" which was wrong. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 08:23 AM (#3704246) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry Steve. I reread your post and I see that you acknowledged the point. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM (#3704250) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Fair point ? You are as sick as he is. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:10 AM (#3704252) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Derrick Keith, Cohabitation between siblings, is that wise? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM (#3704254) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,gillymor Ake:"Homosexual "marriage" in church is still under review, but is of no relative importance, as it affects only a tiny minority of a tiny minority.......get real and focus on the big problems which are being cooked up right now by the Great Alliance of UK Labour, Tory,and "Liberal"." Interesting that you often assert that this "tiny minority" is about to bring down Christendom with it's promiscuity. I suppose you can have it both ways, in your mind if not in reality. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:37 AM (#3704260) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: MGM·Lion I am not a particularly political person so have not followed this thread with that much interest or attention; but a ref on another thread has moved me to log on to it. And I am astonished by what I find. Is the question, as to whose, and which, orifice any particular male may be permitted to penetrate with his virile member, really the only pressing matter with which the electorate should be concerned? It would appear to be about the sole topic to which any considerable attention appears to be paid among posters to this thread. Amazing! Not sure whether to sign off LoL! or Gorblimey! ≈M≈ |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM (#3704268) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Then you clearly haven't read the bulk of the thread, Michael. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 09:57 AM (#3704270) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Bigfoot...Homosexuality will never "bring down" Christianity, but the "liberal" activists who use it as a weapon to destroy all vestiges of social conservatism, are trying their damnedest to do so.. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 10:06 AM (#3704271) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,gillymor So no comment on your contradictory positions, Ake? -BF |
|
26 Apr 15 - 10:07 AM (#3704273) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Barking mad. What a shame. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 10:18 AM (#3704275) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Gilly, if you are unable to comprehend what I post, what is the use of engaging further with you on this thread. I have explained who I see as the "danger" to society, and it is NOT homosexuals. They appear to be more of a "danger" to themselves. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 10:30 AM (#3704280) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Shameful. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 10:47 AM (#3704284) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Example of hypocrisy. Musket admits to helping to write this and sometimes singing it. Actually he boasts of it. My Proper Name is Clarence (John "Mitch" Mitchell) While sitting in a hostelry, alone one Sunday night, A fella came across to me and asked me for a light, He offered me a cigarette; he bought me half a beer, And we were getting friendly when he whispered in my ear. cho: "My proper name is Clarence, but you can call me Clare, I wear sexy undies and I peroxide my hair, My politics are liberal, my outlook's liberal too, In fact my dear, I'm a little bit queer and I've taken a shine to you." Well I supped my jar; I left that bar, faster than a scalded cat, Caught the landlord's eye as I went by and I stopped just for a chat, I said, "Hey, he's propositioned me. Do you allow that there 'ere?" Well he didn't get riled, in fact he just smiled and he whispered in my ear. Well off I did go, to the new disco, to find myself a bride, Picked up this pearl of a pastry girl, took her for a ride, In the back of the car, I got so far, then I froze with fear, When I felt a lump and my heart went thump and a voice whispered in my ear. Next day at eight, I called my mate, he promised not to tell, By a quarter to nine the production line, the foreman knew as well, They called me misses and they blew me kisses, the boss he got to hear, For me he sent, to the office I went and he whispered in my ear. I joined the health service, to train to be a nurse, With stethoscope and fob watch, with pride I fair did burst, My charge nurse said he'd teach me, the kiss of life technique, Well first he turned the lights down and when he began to speak, he said, "My proper name is Clarence, but you can call me Clare, I wear sexy undies and I peroxide my hair, My politics are liberal, my outlook's liberal too, In fact my dear, I'm a little bit queer and I've taken a shine to you. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 11:00 AM (#3704286) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,gillymor Keith, Can you parse out the bits of that song that you think are homophobic and establish Musket(s) as a hypocrite. I don't really see it. There's a history of humorous gender misidentification songs in pop music like the Kinks "Lola", Richard Thompson's "Was She a Woman or a Man" and Aerosmith's "Dude Look Like a Lady" and this seems to be just as innocuous as them. Sincerely though, I'm becoming concerned about your mental well-being as you've posted this song on at least 3 threads now. Perhaps you should take some time for reflection. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 11:54 AM (#3704293) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: MGM·Lion "Then you clearly haven't read the bulk of the thread, Michael." .,,. You reckon, Steve? Then show me one other actual issue which has been raised on the thread with anything approaching the same degree of controversy and animation. ≈Michael≈ |
|
26 Apr 15 - 01:03 PM (#3704308) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks for your concern Gilly. One of those three was a mistake for which I apologise. As you say, such songs were not uncommon back then. It used to be acceptable to mock the supposed antics of gay and trans people. I would not comment on the song except that Musket is so quick to falsely accuse others including me of bigotry and homophobia. The fact that he is still endorses and sings the song is worth a comment. Had I noticed that his latest false accusations against me were deleted I would not have reproduced it. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 01:21 PM (#3704311) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# What we've got here is failure to communicate. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 02:21 PM (#3704318) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome A quick explanation of civil partnerships Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, allow same-sex couples to obtain essentially the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce. Please do not that it does say allow same-sex couples to obtain essentially the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage. Meaning they have the same rights. Not more. It is true that cohabiting siblings are denied the right to civil partnerships. But they are also denied the right to marry. Whether siblings should be allowed to marry is a whole different question and absolutely bugger all to do with the thread premise anyway. But it doesn't surprise me at all that a thread contaminated by our resident bigot turns to sexual preferences as usual. Says a lot really. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 02:38 PM (#3704320) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford The issue of sexual preference was first raised by Musket 25 Apr 15 - 07:52 AM . Stu marked it in the next post saying, "We're off again. Sigh." He was right. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:02 PM (#3704323) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link yep, the usual suspects raising a contentious issue, and then screaming foul when they get the contributions they claim to object to !. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:07 PM (#3704326) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Mentioning something and turning a thread to that subject are a world apart. Besides I would draw anyones attention to Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Date: 24 Apr 15 - 07:36 PM ... I shall vote SNP, though I believe many of their espoused policies are wrong and involve playing politics, simply to gain the votes of those with no understanding of reality. Does anyone really believe that this statement was about anything but the SNP 'espoused policies' about equality for all regardelss of sexuality? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:54 PM (#3704337) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford It did not occur to me Dave. Certainly no-one responded to it as that at the time. I suspect that you see what you want to see. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:57 PM (#3704339) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Putting forth fair-minded and level-headed arguments to oppose bigotry is not crying foul, nor are we in any sense suspects. If you don't support equal rights for gay couples and/or oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. Not even a suspect bigot, pete. You have the right to proudly express your bigotry here but don't expect to get away with it. You could try examining your conscience instead. That's what I thought Christians are supposed to do. I'm no Christian, but I do it. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM (#3704340) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome It's quite simple. Ask ake which espoused policies he was talking about. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:12 PM (#3704342) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich i've lost the thread of this thread. or the will to try to follow it. is anyone on here seriously 'scared' of the 'chaos' of a labour government backed by snp? |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:22 PM (#3704345) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton The main SNP policy that I object to, is of course membership of the EU. I also object to an independent Scotland being a member of NATO. All the bumph about sexual minority rights is only window dressing and should be treated as such. They already have the rights the activists are whining about. Steve to be opposed to homosexual "marriage" is not bigotry, many prominent UK homosexuals and homosexual MPs are against this legislation. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:28 PM (#3704347) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# "is anyone on here seriously 'scared' of the 'chaos' of a labour government backed by snp?" That's a damned good question despite the fact I find Labour to be Conservative Lite. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:29 PM (#3704348) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Achmelvich, I truly believe that if the SNP win a large number of seats 40/50, the main Westminster parties will form a coalition of National Unity to cut off the bargaining power of the Scots. The game is cutting up rough....the hypocrisy of Left v Right will be exposed, as it was in the referendum. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:43 PM (#3704352) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity gillymor: "Ake:"Homosexual "marriage" in church is still under review, but is of no relative importance, as it affects only a tiny minority of a tiny minority.......get real and focus on the big problems..." "...but is of no relative importance, as it affects only a tiny minority of a tiny minority." Keep in mind that it IS a "tiny minority of a tiny minority."..So why does EVERYTHING have to revolve around it, then? Ake said it accurately, when he said, "Homosexuality will never "bring down" Christianity, but the "liberal" activists who use it as a weapon to destroy all vestiges of social conservatism, are trying their damnedest to do so.." Maybe the problem is the 'liberal activists' who are exploiting them, which is a more sweeping influence than homosexuals. 'Liberal' wannabes might consider that the 'party line' may shift, once they get their 'other' agenda's goals.......history SHOULD have clued any of us in on that! GfS |
|
26 Apr 15 - 04:50 PM (#3704355) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Perfectly correct Sanity. If some here had half of your insight they could save themselves a bucketful of bile.....thank you my friend. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 05:05 PM (#3704358) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich .....and there we must leave them. til next time, people. vote as left as you can! |
|
26 Apr 15 - 05:18 PM (#3704361) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome If you cannot see the agenda after the last few posts there is no point continuing. Just ask ake and goofus which policies they find so distasteful. If I, for instance, made any reference to historians or a consensus, it would be pretty stupid to think I was referring to anything but previous discussions. If ake refers to 'espoused policies' I have no reason to assume he is referring to anything but GLBT rights. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 05:39 PM (#3704362) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Dave, did you not read my answer to your question? My main objections are membership of the EU and NATO. I also object to the encouragement of cheap labour from abroad when so many of our young people are jobless and dispirited.....Please try to grow up. |
|
26 Apr 15 - 07:52 PM (#3704379) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Out of interest, what is Michael talking about? What has sex to do with being straight or gay? In fact, why the fixation with men? Nobody was talking about sex, you dirty old man. Get nurse to put some bromide in your tea. Although I hope I still fantasise at your age. Keith gets it wrong as usual, although as ever, on purpose for nasty reasons. Akenaton as ever alluded to pushing his homophobic views, and I as ever pointed out his hypocrisy, although hypocrisy requires aforethought.. No. I spoke of equality as a key part of SNP manifesto. Like Michael above, you think it's something to do with putting your willy in men's bottoms, whilst Akenaton seems to post about nothing else. Why is this thread reprinting lyrics by the way? (Flattered I suppose because I contributed a verse although the reprint has a few mistakes and a verse neither Mitch, Larry nor I wrote, but all the same..) Keith's insistence on dragging it round the threads just makes the song all the more accurate. It was written to satirise those paranoid about gay men. Keith's inability to laugh at such people says it all really. His stalking of Musket is rather cute in a disturbed way. Do you need help Keith? Your support of right wing politics is on record and noted, no need to offer to join Akenaton in a bit of queer bashing, your support for his odious agenda is there for all to see... |
|
26 Apr 15 - 07:52 PM (#3704380) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Steve to be opposed to homosexual "marriage" is not bigotry, many prominent UK homosexuals and homosexual MPs are against this legislation. I don't care if the King of Siam, Dame Edna and the Archangel Gabriel are opposed to it. If it's wrong it's wrong, but it isn't. Not one single coherent argument has ever been put up which demonstrates that gay marriage is wrong in any way at all. It's an unalloyed joy at long last for gay people, and, if you don't like it ,well it's none of your damn business anyway. What in God's name is a "prominent UK homosexual" by the way? Would you care to give us a list of "prominent UK heterosexuals", or is this just another example of your dyed-in-the-wool, can't-help-yourself bigotry? And you have a lot to thank our esteemed moderator(s) for, considering how they leave your foul nonsense up but delete perfectly reasonable, if somewhat direct, challenges to you. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:37 AM (#3704399) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge It would be nice if there were any prospect of a socialist government. Failing that the single most important thing is to get rid of the blasted conservatives (and their fellow-travellers). The basic reasons are that the welfare state is a wonderful thing, to be cherished and supported, and the NHS is part of that and also to be cherished and supported. Yet the conservatives will destroy both, sell off to their rich cronies state assets paid for by the people, continue to steal from the poor to give to the rich, and continue to destroy the justice system so that the rich and powerful cannot be held to account. The 1% have done well out of this government. Maybe the 5% have done OK. The rest have not. I am totally baffled why so many turkeys seem prepared to vote for Xmas. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 02:38 AM (#3704402) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod "I am totally baffled why so many turkeys seem prepared to vote for Xmas." Because the 'turkeys' are snobs and think that all of the country's problems can be solved by 'disciplining' those that they perceive to be of a lower social status to themselves. I am convinced that politics goes no further than that for many people. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 02:41 AM (#3704403) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket It needs less than a 1+5=6% swing Bridge.. I doubt any one party can achieve a majority so horse trading is the name of the game. The Tory dash to risk Europe is somewhat frightening and despite our Labour candidate ignoring our part of the constituency (even naming her website after the only two towns she is interested in) and despite the sitting Tory MP being about as left wing as you can get in their party and highly visible, I can't vote for Cameron who is weak and Osborn who misses the point of having a public purse in the first place. Oh, and before Bridge mentions it, I would indeed do far better personally under the Tories. But like many, I am interested in what a government can do for all whilst every politician I have seen, read or heard encourages people to vote on their own situation and what a particular party can do for them. The Europe case is my main reason to feel economically safer under a labour government despite the risk of Ed making a Balls of it. The months leading up to the Scottish referendum saw industry, finance and investment plummet with those who prop up the Scottish economy threatening to pack up and invest somewhere more stable. It would be the same on a bigger scale. The contribution to GDP by those who see us as a gateway to the rest of Europe are a make or break for our ability to look after our people. Farage speaks of Iceland being able to form its own tariff free trade with China. Mmmm. I think you will find it means China can export there tariff free. Iceland in return can flog a few fish. Is this the dream of Conservative / UKIP? Interesting that it was a conservative government that had the foresight to take us into the European dream (although Labour would have done if the French hadn't vetoed the idea) and the only UK politician to propose a United States of Europe? Oh, that'll be the old gentleman with a cigar whose painting adorns every Con Club in the land. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:34 AM (#3704413) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Hmm. I don't see where he said we couldn't be in two groupings. Maybe you're a post mortem mind-reader. Agreed, Richard. Bar voting for actual fascists, my top voting priority is to make sure that the Tories do not get another five years. That's one thing I can agree with Nicola about. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM (#3704417) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Doug Chadwick Without taking sides in any argument, I note the following exchange: AKE: I shall vote SNP, though I believe many of their espoused policies are wrong and involve playing politics, simply to gain the votes of those with no understanding of reality. DtG: Does anyone really believe that this statement was about anything but the SNP 'espoused policies' about equality for all regardelss of sexuality? - - - - - DtG: It's quite simple. Ask ake which espoused policies he was talking about. AKE: The main SNP policy that I object to, is of course membership of the EU. I also object to an independent Scotland being a member of NATO. DtG: …… If ake refers to 'espoused policies' I have no reason to assume he is referring to anything but GLBT rights. Dave, have you thought of standing for Parliament? You seem to have a natural ability to see what you want to see and to pay no attention to what others say. DC |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:00 AM (#3704421) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, Your support of right wing politics is on record and noted, I do not support right wing politics and never have. I voted Labour in the Blair days, just like you. Centre Right, the majority position. You have no case against me so you have to lie. You always make these things personal. You are incapable of reasoned debate. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:10 AM (#3704422) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Whilst Doug has the ability to ignore what has been said and published on this thread, hoping that some will believe his sloppy contribution. If Dave does run for office, I hope he isn't standing against you Doug. You are a far better politician if you don't mind me saying so. Your blinkered ignoring of bigotry is becoming a less favourable trait in politicians though. If you defend the absurd uttering of someone who says the whole constitution of a party is just lies for media to swallow and in fact, a liberal left leaning party that takes the credit for championing equality legislation really believes the same as him, make sure you aren't defending his more unsavoury views eh? We already have one right wing nutter defending his personality disorder without others weighing in. Terribulus is on form I see. The tablets must be working. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:29 AM (#3704425) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket I make things personal! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Morning Keith! This from the man who stalks me round the threads and even printed the words to a song in this thread just to resurrect some nonsense regarding what we meant when we wrote the bugger. Yeah, really personal. You call Musket a liar when you should say liars, as you won't even accept our position on Mudcat, so don't get too pissed off when none of the Musket log ins take you seriously. Although you can take some pride in being one of the reasons we share in the first place. Ok, so your pendulum is where you think it is, although your glorification of military aggression coupled with your less savoury comments over men from Pakistani origin, let alone your "straight from the UKIP" comments on immigration pull you a titsy bit further right, don't you think? That's before we get onto claiming to support UKIP in a thread, continual attempts to give credence to Akenaton's homophobic posts and strange method of trying to see if someone got their view from a website and calling them liars when you can't find it. Independent thought process seems to be beyond you... Nice to see you using the past tense when you mention voting Labour. UKIP got into gear about the same time you stopped voting Labour I see.. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:31 AM (#3704426) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome No, not really, Doug. You could ask ake the same question as he seems to hope that everyone has forgotten his stance on gay rights such as gay people should be put on a register and not allowed to be married. He seems to ignore the fact that he has said that the SNP are only espousing equality to gain votes. Maybe he is right, Maybe people, such as yourself, do have selective memory loss? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:52 AM (#3704428) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Oddly I was talking to an African princess, over the weekend. She now lives in the UK and life has not been good to her recently. She made it very clear that since she was royal she would be voting for the party of the ruling class - ie the conservatives. I could not get it into her skull that not only was she not any part of the ruling classes in the UK but also the people who were were those who had done the most to remove the powers of the traditional rulers in Africa. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:54 AM (#3704431) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Silly boy, don't you know that MOST of what politicians say is to "gain votes". Most are unscrupulous rogues, as can be seen from the expenses scandal and the about turn by all "liberal" parties on immigration. After demonising Mr Farage and his party for bringing it into public debate in the first place. The SNP are as guilty of "playing politics" as any of the rest.....a tactic which could cost them dear in the longer term. They should be honest about the huge problems ahead if we are to become a strong independent nation, rather than waffling on about minority "rights". Still, they will get my vote, and hopefully independence....then we can really get down to business. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:05 AM (#3704432) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Sorry Richard, that was in response to Dave. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:10 AM (#3704435) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome From the horses mouth, Doug. rather than waffling on about minority "rights" For what it is worth, ake, I agree about most politicians but what astounds me the most is how people keep falling for it. Like those who believe that immigration is a major cause of our economic crisis. Ring any bells? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM (#3704436) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton " Like those who believe that immigration is a major cause of our economic crisis. Ring any bells?" No!....the policy(unregulated immigration from Eastern Europe), was thought up as an antidote to the coming economic crisis....It did not work and is now causing untold damage to an infrastructure which we cannot afford to strengthen. A sticking plaster on a mortal wound. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:30 AM (#3704437) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, claiming to support UKIP in a thread, Made up shit. Another lie Musket. Why not just challenge what I actually, really do say? Perhaps because there is nothing there for you to attack, so you have to make it up. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:31 AM (#3704438) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I'm not even going to try and go through everything that is wrong with that statement. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:33 AM (#3704439) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus " I don't see where he said we couldn't be in two groupings. " Then I would suggest Mr. Shaw that you read the extract from the speech again or better still stir yourself and Google the text of the entire speech and read the whole thing. In the speech he refers to NATO, he refers to Britain and its Commonwealth and he refers to his envisaged union of European countries. At no time at all in the speech does he ever infer that Britain would be part of the latter - clear enough for you? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:34 AM (#3704440) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford let alone your "straight from the UKIP" comments on immigration pull you a titsy bit further right, don't you think? No, because those views I have expressed on immigration are also endorsed by Labour and Lib Dems. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:48 AM (#3704443) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome By wonderful coincidence the UN have made a statement about the British press reportage on immigration. The final paragraph sums it up so well - The High Commissioner noted that "while migration and refugee issues are completely valid topics for public debate, it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction, exaggeration or blatant xenophobia. History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonizing foreigners and minorities, and it is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used in a variety of countries, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers." To see the whole article click here. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:56 AM (#3704445) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Hmmm - Link maker seems to have run out of characters :-( C&P it yourself http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/katie-hopkins-migrant-cockroaches-column-resembles-progenocide-propaganda-says-the-un-10201959.html |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:58 AM (#3704446) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Unregulated immigration from low wage economies to high wage economies is always wrong and ultimately harmful to both countries. Nothing to do with bigotry racism or xenophobia. Any real socialist would argue that these people work at home to help their own people raise living standards, treat the sick, run public services. Aren't we selfish? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:12 AM (#3704450) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction There is no unregulated immigration. Every immigrant into this country has to go through the legal channels or risk being found as an illegal immigrant. There are stringent checks on every applicant. So much so that people do risk entering illegally. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:30 AM (#3704451) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: The Sandman 100 not out, sorry leadfingers |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM (#3704455) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Do let me help you, Billyboy. The extract you quoted does not illustrate the point you were trying to make. That's what I meant. In fact, you need to go back to a speech made in the early 30s in which he said that we could be with Europe but not of it. As you advise googling for others, maybe take your own advice on this occasion, and quote the most appropriate thing to illustrate your point next time. By the way, can you demonstrate that the trauma of the war left his view unchanged? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:45 AM (#3704457) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge I wish people would remember and apply the difference between "infer" and "imply". |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:53 AM (#3704458) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "Any real socialist would argue that these people work at home to help their own people" No real socialist would ever make such a discriminatory statement - socialism is International - the nature of the beast unless you happen to be a 'National Socialist', which your argument suggests you are - different best altogether and nothing to do with equality of opportunity for all, as it's horrendous track-rcord shows. Jim Carroll |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:57 AM (#3704460) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw What are you alluding, Richard? :-) |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:05 AM (#3704462) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus In general usage terms as opposed to "lawyer-ese" "imply" synonyms: implicit, indirect, hinted, suggested, insinuated, deducible, inferred, understood; oblique, unspoken, unexpressed, undeclared, unstated, unsaid, tacit, unacknowledged, not spelt out, silent, taken for granted, taken as read, assumed |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:10 AM (#3704465) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Tsk. They don't use "fewer" either eh Bridge? Whilst ever linguistic pedantry top trumps issues, there will always be an England. Your post, in a strange way, was the most heartening one I have read thus far. Mind you, that you know what they meant lowers the need to criticise? Just a thought. Funny how my mentioning that Churchill coined the phrase "United States of Europe" has led to Terribulus saying I was wrong, but it was an accurate statement I made.. Another wannabe politician. I didn't qualify it any further so his straw man seems to be growing almost as fast as Keith's conversion from his earlier stances on immigration, racial stereotypes and presumably military fiction. No. Too far Musket me old lad. Don't be silly.... Regarding the Scotland and immigration; I did mention that one of the Muskets is in India at present did I? Courtesy of the Scottish government, trying to do something about the 10% of all hospital consultant posts being unfilled. I was at a Royal Medical Society bash in Edinburgh recently, (Mrs Musket is the member, I just like the cuisine at Castle Terrace) and the medical school at Edinburgh University? Only 4% of the intake were from Scottish addresses. Apparently, that's higher than some down here. Makes you think... Notwithstanding that immigrants have, according to ONS and grudgingly confirmed by the treasury contributed to the coffers more than dipped in for a sub, notwithstanding that the tough immigration rules in place are so draconian, families are being split up in harrowing circumstances, notwithstanding that foreign students on visas make universities just about financially viable... The whole idea of blaming minorities for your own failures and the sheep mentality of those who fall for it just remind us that Germany in the '20s and '30s wasn't that hard to believe it could ever happen..... |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:13 AM (#3704468) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Dave, look up Free movement of Labour in the EU. We have no control over the numbers of immigrants coming here from Eastern Europe......I did not say that the immigration was illegal. Ever wonder why there is not a massive shift of unskilled and semiskilled workers to Poland or Rumania from the UK? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:14 AM (#3704470) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Synonyms of the verb "imply" must also be verbs. None of yours are. To infer means to deduce. Your references do not reflect that. I should stick to historical revisionism if I were you. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:19 AM (#3704474) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome We have no control over the numbers of immigrants coming here from Eastern Europe Not what you said, ake. Your exact phrase was Unregulated immigration from low wage economies to high wage economies is always wrong and ultimately harmful to both countries. Unregulated immigration is a myth. Free movement of labour within the EU is not unregulated immigration. You did exactly what the UN commissioner is railing against and then tried to change it. Unfortunately for you your previous posts are there for all to see. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:21 AM (#3704475) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton " The whole idea of blaming minorities for your own failures and the sheep mentality of those who fall for it just remind us that Germany in the '20s and '30s wasn't that hard to believe it could ever happen..... " I don't think anyone is blaming the immigrants for wishing to make themselves and their families better off, that is the purpose of economic migration. The villains are in Brussels and Westminster both parties encouraged unregulated immigration "to make us competitive in the global economy".....pity they forgot about the crumbling infrastructure and our own workless young people. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM (#3704476) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw The law of this country is that you cannot pay immigrants less than native Brits. We have a legal minimum wage. If you know of cases where this law is being broken, then it's unscrupulous employers you should be blaming, not immigration. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:42 AM (#3704483) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome The villains are in Brussels and Westminster both parties encouraged unregulated immigration Was it really only 10 minutes ago I pointed out that unregulated immigration and free movement of labour within the EU were not the same thing? As to anyone encouraging anything, I thought they were just applying the laws of the land? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:48 AM (#3704486) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Free movement is unregulated. Free movement immigration is unregulated immigration. There is unregulated immigration from EU. Steve, the report Musket quoted conceded that immigration has depressed the wages of the lowest paid. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 08:03 AM (#3704492) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome There is unregulated immigration from EU. Yes there is. That is not what ake said. It was only a few minutes ago but maybe a reminder would help. Unregulated immigration from low wage economies to high wage economies is always wrong and ultimately harmful to both countries. No mention of free movement of labour in the EU. It is the pure concept of someone encouraging unregulated immigration that sets people off on the 'let's blame the Polish fruit pickers' track. It is the language and idea of blaming the easy target that is wrong. BTW - free movement of people within the EU works both ways. Have either of you seen the actual figures on how many Britons are living in Europe compared to EU nationals living here? Shall I give you a clue as to what those figure will be like or leave it up to you to assume the worst? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM (#3704495) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Going back up the thread to respond to Shimrod's post, the main reason there are so many Lib Dem placards on the local council estate boils down to one man - the very popular ex-councillor of the ward, Norman Lewis (the feller who looks like a Status Quo roadie) whose personal standing locally is such that he woud still havehis supporters even if he stood for the natural law party. I won't pretend to look into the minds of middle class Labour voters in Chorlton, but I think his excellent article by Owen Jones sums up the difference between a vote for Labour and a vote for the Tories - the two parties are far closer than I'm comfortable with, but the differences are enough to make a vote for them worthwhile. Meanwhile, I'll not be voting for our sitting MP, John Leech. He got voted into a historically Labour ward on the back of anti-Iraq War sentiment, and went on to either vote with the Tories or mysteriously absent himself at voting times. I'd vote Green if I was following my heart, but I suspect that by doing so I would be giving away my vote to the Lib Dems and potentially by extension to the Tories. I find it sad that the Labour party has accepted the logic of the Tory agenda and joined them in demonising the SNP. Though I also suspect they don't want to form any kind of alliance with a party that will try to pull them to the left, more's the pity. Parliamentary democracy. What a kerfuffle. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 08:45 AM (#3704502) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Bonzo3legs It amazes me that there is a "Vote Communist" poster displayed outside the hideous labour headquarters in Croydon - seems to me that they don't know their arse from their elbow! |
|
27 Apr 15 - 08:52 AM (#3704503) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Bozo, why do you not bother to tell the truth about Ruskin House? "Ruskin House, situated in its own grounds on Coombe Road, Croydon, South London, has been an important centre of Britain's progressive movements for a century. It is the headquarters of Croydon's Communist, Labour, Trade Union and Co-operative movements and is itself a co-operative with shareholders from organisations across the four movements." So it is not, as you imply, a case of the Labour Party urging people to vote communist. It seems that you don't know your arse from the truth. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 09:19 AM (#3704508) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Doug Chadwick From the horses mouth, Doug. rather than waffling on about minority "rights" Yes, Dave. It does tend to add weight to your argument, I must admit. DC |
|
27 Apr 15 - 09:21 AM (#3704509) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Thanks, Doug. It really is appreciated when someone can see the point I was making. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 10:42 AM (#3704530) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Bonzo3legs Bridge being rude and obnoxious as ever, nothing changes! |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:00 AM (#3704533) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Just noticed where Keith said "There is unregulated immigration from EU" Remember Dimbleby pulling up Nigel Farage for saying that exact untrue phrase on Question Time recently? It begs the question, from EU to where? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:04 AM (#3704535) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome I didn't think you could have immigration from somewhere. I thought that was emigration? Or are we supposed to infer what is being implied? :D |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:33 AM (#3704545) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw To what are you alluring there, Dave? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:43 AM (#3704547) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton How many more of you can get on that pin head?.....:0) I used to think this forum was full of intelligent people ....there is probably more sensible debate on Facebook. Dave our engagement on Mudcat is at an end, you are and have always been, the most disingenuous person that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:46 AM (#3704549) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I see that our resident 'champions of the people' have not only deleted threads, they've deleted ANY posts that don't tow the 'party line'.....and then want us to believe that their ideological rants are for equality!!! What are you trying to do?....mess with the survival of Mudcat, and the revenue that all the participants bring, by posting???....just because your liberal posture iis being found out to be a fraud???? GfS |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:49 AM (#3704550) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Vast numbers of unskilled workers in this country are paid the minimum wage and 'twas ever thus. Immigrants cannot legally be the reason for the suppression of wages because employers are not allowed to pay below the legal minimum wage. Of course, employers can and do employ people on temporary, seasonal, part-time and zero-hour contracts, not to speak of on those bogus apprenticeships. Many will find ways of paying as little as possible. That will happen with or without immigrants, and the problem is caused by unscrupulous employers and the unregulated nature of employment contracts in this country (lest we forget, a situation that has been encouraged by the Tories in order to artificially suppress the unemployment statistics, along with forcing former benefits claimants to become "self-employed", whether there's work or not). The first bloody great big clue that this charade exists is the fact that productivity in this country is stubbornly stuck in the ditch, not reflecting in the slightest the Tory-constructed illusion that there are more people "in work" than ever and we've created over a million jobs, blah blah. As for immigrants taking up the jobs of our yoofs, employers have been complaining for years that they can't find the young people with the right skills. So whose fault is that then? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 11:54 AM (#3704554) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Dave the Gnut: "Unregulated immigration is a myth." Visit the Mexican border. GfS |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:00 PM (#3704558) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Nigel Parsons There is unregulated immigration from EU. That statement is being debated, with some claiming it's true, and some taking the contrary position. Maybe people are arguing semantics (without making it clear what it is they say is untrue). There is not unregulated immigration from EU. We are currently part of the EU so there cannot be immigration "from EU" to UK. That there is unregulated transfer of workers from certain states of the EU to the UK is (I believe) true. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:00 PM (#3704559) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Yes, well you don't mind exploiting them in the good times, eh? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:01 PM (#3704560) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw That was to Goofus. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:07 PM (#3704562) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton "That there is unregulated transfer of workers from certain states of the EU to the UK is (I believe) true." As far as I and I suppose Keith, is concerned, that was a "given" Nigel. However, thank you for clarifying the point. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:09 PM (#3704563) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Dave our engagement on Mudcat is at an end Thank fuck for that. Now, will you leave the rest of us in peace too? Goofus - Is the Mexican border part of the UK? Notice anything odd about the thread title here? Idiot. Nigel - absolutely. As I keep saying, free movement of labour in the EU is not unregulated immigration. As to the unregulated transfer of workers. Well, partly true. There is unregulated movement of people within the EU, workers or not. The only proviso is that they have to have a passport from an EU country. As such, it may not be regulated but it is carefully monitored. Which is how we know what the net effect of that movement is and, by the lack of comment from those who say migrants should be stopped from entering Britain, I guess they know as well as I that the net effect paints a different picture from the one they are portraying. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:36 PM (#3704571) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Well at least Nigel noted my point that we are part of The EU.. I'm jealous Dave, really bleedin' jealous. How can you be the worst person Akenaton has encountered when all three Muskets go out of our way to be the opposite of anything and everything he can or does stand for? 😂😂😂 Yes, there is transfer of labour within EU states, hence it was easier for me when it made business sense to be based in Ireland, Germany and Italy at particular times. It allowed us to offer a promotion to a quality manager in the Italy factory to our operation in The UK, which he accepted, and moving was as simple as moving from Manchester to Sheffield. Where xenophobes fall down in their rants and lies is to assume British people are being disadvantaged in the job market for being British. These days, I know a bit more about healthcare than engineering, and it is a fact that the level of training for doctors in some Eastern European countries is not as good as many other countries, especially those that mirror the British medical school model, which includes most Commonwealth countries and to a degree, U.S. and Western European countries. But here's the thing.. You don't have to employ them if they are not up to the mark. There is a lot of twaddle doing the rounds that we have to employ doctors and nurses that wouldn't have qualified under our system. Not so. There are many Eastern European doctors at the trust where I last was involved, and one failed to be given a permanent contract at the end of the trial period. In the meantime, The Daily Ma*l was saying we couldn't sack them... The others by the way are excellent. The best in a bad training regime overlap the worst in a good one. On the other side of the coin, the shortage in general does mean some temporary or locum posts are being filled by doctors who have restrictions on their practice until they have demonstrated competence through appraisal. That is an issue, but not one that any immigration regime could or would address. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:49 PM (#3704578) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Is it not ironic that those who wring their handkerchiefs and weep their crocodile tears for the poor Christians being slaughtered by Isis in Africa, The Middle East and Asia would stand at the borders with shotguns and turn them away if they came to Britain as asylum seekers? Jim Carroll |
|
27 Apr 15 - 12:59 PM (#3704579) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Dave the Gnut: "Goofus - Is the Mexican border part of the UK? Notice anything odd about the thread title here? Idiot." Yes, I did....and if you noticed, Oh 'Bright One' that the discussion revolved around the liberal policies vs. the more conservative ones. Over in the UK you have issues with the UK and the EU..those who favor it, and those who don't..fair enough?.....That happens to be identical to the policies and debate that goes on here, in the U.S. in regards to NAFTA(North American Free Trade Agreement) signed off by Bill Clinton, who a lot of shallow thinking idiots, regard as a 'liberal'. This bill was signed into law, at the behest of the corporations, for the same reasons that the EU was ushered in....and promoted as being a 'liberal' policy, 'for the people'. What a bunch of hogwash! So the concerns are VERY similar, and being forced on everyone, whether they know what it is really about or not. (Similar, again, to the ban on drilling on federal lands here, and sold to the public as being an 'environmental issue'.....when it really was about Kissinger, in 1979, making a deal with the Saudis, that they buy our treasury bonds, and we buy their oil, with no new drilling here(on federal lands). The 'so-called liberals' applauded that decision, (and some still do) mistakenly thinking it was about the environment. To get OUT of that agreement, for the benefit of the Banksters, the entire Mid East has been allowed to deteriorate into a chaotic bloodbath.....over what amounted to be a fraudulent lie. Other examples can EASILY be listed. The 'so-called liberal' agendas, whether they be in England, the UK, the EU, or whatever the nomenclature d'jour, is denying people their rights and identities, based on the policies of these economic institutions, and the elections, both here and England, the UK, the EU, or whatever the nomenclature d'jour, happens to be. The 'elections' in the UK, or here, are a sham...an act...to PRETEND that the people have a voice, at what is being imposed on them.....run by the same folks, without representation, or virtually ANY say, whatsoever! Get over it! So the 'heated' discussion over the election in the UK, amounts to nothing more than mental masturbation, because your elevated brand of idiocy WILL NOT address the REAL issues....only personalities and talking points which have been purposely set up as distractions Get it?..Got it?...Good! GfS |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:02 PM (#3704583) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome If I know, Musket, I would tell you :-) I suspect it is just the last refuge of a scoundrel, beyond patriotism. Feign righteous indignation and storm off in a huff. Saves having to come up with any sensible arguments. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:13 PM (#3704591) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Little Hawk Ah. The Vicious Old Gits Club of the UK meets for the 18 millionth time! Lovely. I'll get some finger food, a nice cool drink, and just sit back and enjoy it. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:13 PM (#3704592) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Goofus - Get back to what you know best. The village is missing it's idiot. The only similarity between US and UK politics is the name. That last load of drivel was complete bollocks even by your standards. Go and play in the traffic or something. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:17 PM (#3704593) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome LH - :-D Just be careful we don't start charging. Now, what about your very own Goofus? Am I allowed to mention the US idiots consortium? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:23 PM (#3704595) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: The Sandman "Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Bonzo3legs - PM Date: 27 Apr 15 - 10:42 AM Bridge being rude and obnoxious as ever, nothing changes!" but he is speaking the truth Ruskin House, situated in its own grounds on Coombe Road, Croydon, South London, has been an important centre of Britain's progressive movements for a century. It is the headquarters of Croydon's Communist, Labour, Trade Union and Co-operative movements and is itself a co-operative with shareholders from organisations across the four movements. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:30 PM (#3704599) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity HELLO LITTLE HAWK...YO HO!! Glad to see you again! Dave the Gnut, You are either blind or stupid....take your pick. Your post says absolutely nothing! The globalist corporations are running everything....and OWN most all of the politicians.....EVEN before they run! There is NOTHING 'liberal' or 'conservative' about them...just power driven. Why can't you comprehend that? Spending too much time being an 'ornament' in someones garden? GfS |
|
27 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM (#3704601) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Errr, Much as I hate to admit it, I have been saying exactly the same thing for years. Please feel free to look it up. Power is in the hands of the moguls who run the media who tell idiots what to think. There are some politicians who try their best but they are fighting a losing battle. As to my post saying nothing, let me make it easier for you. Just fuck off and stop pretending to know what you are talking about. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:06 PM (#3704613) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# There are more blowhards on this thread than Carter had Little Liver Pills. People so insecure with their opinions that they have to shout down anyone who has a different opinion. I hope the BS section lives through it. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:22 PM (#3704614) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Hey, LH! One or two of us are quite civilised in our approach... |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:31 PM (#3704617) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Quite civilised does not necessarily mean offering meaningful opinions. It seems to mean, look at li'l' ol' me, how virtuous am I, guys, but, er, I have nothing to offer... |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:42 PM (#3704620) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Dave-Babes: "Errr, Much as I hate to admit it, I have been saying exactly the same thing for years. Please feel free to look it up." What?...."Spending too much time being an 'ornament' in someones garden?"........(grin) Dave-Babes, again: "Power is in the hands of the moguls who run the media who tell idiots what to think. There are some politicians who try their best but they are fighting a losing battle." ...but you keep quoting your favorite media sources..... Dave-Babes, again: "....politicians who try their best....." .....Playing to either 'side' PRETENDING to 'try their best', to steer the National dialogue...AWAY from 'what's behind the curtain'...... and I've been saying that since I first came on!...Look it up....(..and you have quite a history of adapting and adapting 'so-called liberal' talking points to your logic and point of view. (just think about it, and reflect...and you might see how deep it runs....respectfully). GfS |
|
27 Apr 15 - 03:58 PM (#3704629) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Don Firth There are three people (?) in particular who are counselling defeatism: Little Honk, the pharaoh who doesn't know how to spell his own name, and, of course, Goofballupagus. "Don't all you 'so-called liberals' realize that there is no use opposing the All Powerful Fascists? The fix is in. The Philistines have won. Stop deluding yourselves. Save yourself trouble by just crawling to the nearest concentration camp and beg to be let in." That's just exactly what the Forces of Evil WANT you to think!! The statement, "You can't fight City Hall" was started by City Hall!" Don Firth |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:15 PM (#3704636) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, we can not and do not turn away asylum seekers. No country can. That was a nasty lie you told presumably about me. Steve, Ed Milliband said that immigration pushes down the wages of the lower paid. Is he a fool? Dave, EU migrants entering Britain from outside Britain are immigrants to Britain. They are migrants within EU but immigrants to Britain. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:23 PM (#3704639) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford BBC last year, Ed Miliband said the key to addressing public concerns about immigration was preventing companies abusing employment laws and ending the UK's "chronic dependency on low-skill, low-wage labour" from abroad. In an article for the Independent on Sunday, the Labour leader said it was not prejudiced to believe the immigration of high levels of cheap workers from the EU was harming the chances of some of Britain's workers. "Unless we act to change our economy, low-skill immigration risks making the problems of the cost-of-living crisis worse for those at the sharp end," he said. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:26 PM (#3704640) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,gillymor Amen Don, Those defeatists you mention think they're enlightening us but they're really just describing an age-old struggle, "The haves against the have nots" something that's always been with us. Those who wish to exploit humanity and the earth for their own selfish ends are global now, they have more money and power and they feel more entitled than ever so what are you going to do sit at your computer and rant at people like a banshee or get out and try even harder to make your government work? I still abide by that old saw "Think globally and act locally". |
|
27 Apr 15 - 04:38 PM (#3704642) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Triplane Oxymoron was mentioned Ox = Bull.... or Cow.... & moron is the dispenser as in Rhino-sauras |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:07 PM (#3704654) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome but you keep quoting your favorite media sources Go for it, goofus. What are my favourite media sources? You have no idea do you. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:08 PM (#3704656) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Keith - Have you looked up what the net effect of migration within the EU is yet? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:19 PM (#3704657) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Don Firth The three My representatives to Washington, D.C. from Washington State are Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and the Congressional Representative from my legislative district is Jim McDermott. I helped on their campaigns, voted for them—AND keep a running check on what they do in Washington, D.C.. So far, I've been fairly satisfied with how they've done. But I'm watching carefully. It takes some effort and a bit of knowledge on my part. The kind of effort and knowledge that the aforementioned numbskulls are too squishy-brained and lazy to exert. Don Firth |
|
27 Apr 15 - 05:41 PM (#3704665) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton What brought on this fine bit of invective Don? I thought you had retired from public life :0) There I was just celebrating the most welcome return of the onetime Star of Mudcat, Little Hawk, when you spoil it all by being sick all over my computer screen! |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:11 PM (#3704673) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Don Firth I'm not the one who's sick, pharaoh. Don Firth |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:23 PM (#3704675) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jeri All of y'all are sick, IMO. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:37 PM (#3704678) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: The Sandman its not much fun being a gnome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A13FuixaquU The Gnome I want to tell you a story About a little man If I can. A gnome named Grimble Grumble. And little gnomes stay in their homes. Eating, sleeping, drinking their wine. He wore a scarlet tunic, A blue green hood, It looked quite good. He had a big adventure Amidst the grass Fresh air at last. Wining, dining, biding his time. And then one day - hooray! Another way for gnomes to say Hoooooooooray. Look at the sky, look at the river Isn't it good? Look at the sky, look at the river Isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go. And then one day - hooray! Another way for gnomes to say Hoooooooooray. Hooooooooooooooray. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 06:59 PM (#3704684) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw All of y'all are sick, IMO. Good job then that your humble opinion counts for Jack shit then, moderator dear. Go on, delete. You know it's too embarrassing to leave up. But we won't forget your blanket dissing, will we. You know summat, some of us try quite hard to make debating points. I never read a single one of those from you, never ever. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 07:23 PM (#3704688) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Immigration does not push down wages, Keith. Exploitative employers push down wages. That would be largely British, largely white, largely male, largely middle-class capitalists, Keith. It does not help when we have a government that lauds "job creation" at any price: frozen wages, zero-hours contracts, inadequate part-time hours for millions, bogus apprenticeships on diddley squat per hour, job security thrown out of the window, trade union smashing, demonising benefits claimants and forcing claimants into fake self-employment. That's what pushes down wages, Keith, not people coming into the country who want to better themselves and work hard. As has been said here more than once, immigrants to this country provide a net economic benefit and always have done. I don't give a damn what Miliband says. Miliband has to suck up to the anti-immigration lobby (your sort, Keith) during an election campaign. Stop pretending that lofty principles are at stake here. |
|
27 Apr 15 - 08:57 PM (#3704712) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Don Firth Jeri, is it sick to educate oneself in ethics and political science, then pay attention to the details of what's really going on, and take part in trying to make this a better world? Is it sick to take issue with those who denigrate one's efforts because they are too bloody ignorant and lazy? Who are the sick ones here? THINK about it!! Don Firth |
|
27 Apr 15 - 09:12 PM (#3704717) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Van Bit of a problem. What happens if we end up with a hung parliament and no one can form a government? An Act was passed by the coalition that now means that governments are elected for a fixed term. If no government is elected what happens? |
|
27 Apr 15 - 09:40 PM (#3704720) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Somebody will be invited to form a minority government. If that government doesn't get past vital votes in the Commons there will be another election. If there's a ton of squabbling as to who will support who, and the horse-trading doesn't deliver, Cameron will probably carry on for a bit then there'll be another election in October-ish. He'll be able to blame everyone else for causing another election, which nobody really wants, and will waltz back in. But by then it could well be Boris, as call-me-Dave will have lost credibility, having been unable to win two elections in spite of his opponents only being Brown and Miliband. This hellish scenario could be avoided if Labour can miraculously hold on to a lot more Scottish seats than expected. So, Scots, who d'ye want? Cameron again did I hear you say? Great! All you have to do is vote SNP! The fixed-term deal won't prevent any of that. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 12:54 AM (#3704746) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Given the track records in Government of those standing if anybody votes Labour or SNP then they want their heads examined. A coalition government formed by Labour and the SNP would be a recipe for disaster, considering that the the primary responsibility of the "Government" that they would form would be to look after and safeguard the long term national interests of the United Kingdom as a whole - at times that means taking unpopular decisions and neither of these "populist" clowns are capable of doing that, as has been clearly demonstrated since 1997 and 2007 respectively. "But by then it could well be Boris, as call-me-Dave will have lost credibility, having been unable to win two elections in spite of his opponents only being Brown and Miliband." - Steve Shaw Nice to see how highly Labour leaders are regarded by such a "socialist" champion and Labour supporter as Mr Shaw. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 01:55 AM (#3704758) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity When everything is coming together.....here comes Don, to the 'rescue'... with his version of passports to concentration camps. BTW, usually it's some extreme politically radical, bullshit artist, who create the camps...and the need for them. .....Coming soon to people who don't give a crap about the overly indoctrinated, subscribers to bullshit political agendas! ...besides, Don, do you think that the UK is on the verge of creating your camps? GfS |
|
28 Apr 15 - 01:59 AM (#3704759) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket I've tried examining your head Terribulus. Still in therapy from the experience. In an ideal world you would say that there is no real difference between the two parties since the "compassionate conservatism" under Major met Blair and Mandleson's "New Labour." However, the present conservative government (coalition? Where?) has not addressed the financial issues that led to the 2008 crash, other than blame the previous government for causing it, which not even they really believe as it was in spite of rather than because of governments, and to lower living standards whilst claiming to have raised them. On and haven't addressed the debt despite saying they have. It's all in the figures. No. The main two reasons the Tories should not be trusted with power are a combination of poor fiscal management combined with suicide pacts over our future as a trading nation. If we leave The EU, we are fucked. Ask Cameron. He is pro EU but his party isn't. Weird and awful in equal measure. I've already voted by the way. Postal vote. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 02:35 AM (#3704764) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Mither, this government is worse than that. Only a person who wants to go back to the worst conditions of the mid-1800s, the excesses of the rich, the suffering of the poor, could consider voting conservative. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 03:13 AM (#3704774) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Doug Chadwick I've already voted by the way. Postal vote. It's not fair. Musket gets three votes! DC |
|
28 Apr 15 - 03:38 AM (#3704778) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll It's become a knee jerk for to blame one government to blame the other side for the state of the economy in Britain when, in fact, there is little to choose between them - parliamentary pilitics has become a matter of maintaining a system that is increasingly failing to serve the interests of the British (Irish and American) people - a corrupt and incompetent banking system and subservient politicians who are part of that corruption and incompetence. The total absence of rational policies by the present Government is it's intentions to take up Thatcher's (the nearest Britain has ever come to electing a fascist to run the country) insane policy of selling council houses to tenants (turning homes into commodities) - talk about asking turkeys to vote for Christmas! Jim Carroll |
|
28 Apr 15 - 03:43 AM (#3704779) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Anyone voting for a Labour/SNP ticket is voting for a Trojan Horse that can only succeed in ruining the country. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 03:45 AM (#3704781) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Stu "I wonder how we managed before." The world was a very different place then, globalisation didn't exist and we were coming out of a period of relative prosperity that was kiboshed when OPEC hiked the oil price in 1973. "We are shackled politically and in trade to rules imposed by an un-elected Commission, who do not have our best interests at heart but those of an "ideal" and an organisation that couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery" The world is run by unelected cabals of all sorts (Bilderberg etc), at least those at the EU are answerable to our elected representatives. It's far from ideal, but what's the alternative? Our political parties are full of corporate shills and career politicians whose agendas certainly include the best interests of the people. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 04:03 AM (#3704785) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "that can only succeed in ruining the country." Th country is pretty well in tatters anyway - introducing Scotland into the equation isn't going to make a lot of difference one way or the other - not to the South anyway - it may wring a few concessions for them following the betrayal of the referendum Jim Carroll |
|
28 Apr 15 - 04:07 AM (#3704787) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Terribulus.. If you must cut and paste right wing propaganda, at least read it first and see if you understand it eh? Your final paragraph could have been written by you though, it certainly combines naive thinking with blinkered dogma. Doug. Musket does indeed have three votes. In different constituencies though, and sitting MPs from three different parties (I think.. London boroughs can be confusing.) We aren't governed by an unelected commission. Those such as UKIP who get elected to EU seats are into dereliction of duty by not participating in a constructive manner. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 05:01 AM (#3704794) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Terribilis - please TRY to think. The factor that clearly emerges from even your bigoted rant is that it was the banking system's recycling of geared falsely rated debt that was the key factor. That is squarely down to the right wing ideal of unregulated casino banking. The only complaint the UK right wingers ever made about the Labour deregulation of banks was that it did not go far enough. It was not the poor who set in motion the events that led to the banking crisis. But they are paying for it, more than any other group, indeed there are 49 deaths that flow from this government's war on the poor, while during the lifetime of this parliament the richest 1% in the UK have doubled their wealth. If you cannot see why that is totally unacceptable you have no conscience or morals. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 05:09 AM (#3704797) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Steve, you might be right but here is an alternative view from the Oxford University Migration Observatory, March last year. "UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain. More... The wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are migrants themselves. More... Research does not find a significant impact of overall immigration on unemployment in the UK, but the evidence suggests that immigration from outside the EU could have a negative impact on the employment of UK-born workers, especially during an economic downturn. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration |
|
28 Apr 15 - 05:34 AM (#3704799) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Sounds like a great argument for a rigidly enforced minimum wage Jim Carroll IMMIGRATION TO AND MIGRATION FROM BRITAIN |
|
28 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM (#3704804) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Rigidly enforced wages and a strongeg Trades Union say in workerss wages - I should have said The claimed threat to standards of workers living is proof, if proof were needed, that neither employers nor politicians can be trusted to ensure a fair wage. Jim Carrroll |
|
28 Apr 15 - 06:14 AM (#3704807) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Ehmmm NO Richard nobody forced people to live beyond their means - that is down to the stupidity of individuals. It then goes to poor risk assessment on the part of those lending, unfortunately they incorrectly believed that the sums they had in bookmakers parlance "laid off" to cover themselves were based on an assumption that was terribly wrong. What betrayal in the referendum? The majority of the electorate of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, the track record is that you cannot put any faith in any assurance given by the SNP wrt the United Kingdom and they are still fully committed to working towards the break up of the United Kingdom and independence for Scotland. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 06:18 AM (#3704809) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Lest we forget, the deregulation of the banking system was initiated with great fanfare by Thatcher in the late 80s. New Labour did sod all about it, of course, but the Tories were in full and enthusiastic support right up to the crash. As for the country being all hunkydory in 1997, well let's talk about the then 18-month waiting lists for new hips, etc. That's the trouble with the economist types - they measure human happiness in terms of money and nothing else. After 18 years of Toryism unemployment was at 6.8%. By 2008 it stood at 5%. Then came the crash, which the Tories never fail to blame entirely on New Labour, which is entirely a big lie. Now we have the Tories concealing unemployment and under-employment by encouraging zero-hour contracts, part-time work with no job security, bogus apprenticeships and forcing jobseekers to declare themselves "self-employed". Thatcher managed it by sticking millions of people she' d thrown out of work on to the scrap heap known as incapacity benefit. Anything to conceal the true level of unemployment, eh? But the productivity and growth figures are a somewhat inconvenient giveaway, eh? Not looking too good in this morning's news.... As for my predilections, Billyboy, my dislike of the major parties is almost evenly spread. Like most other people I have to weigh up what the least worst option is. I know what the worst option is: more of this, that's what. If I lived in America I'd have to vote democrat even though they are somewhere on the spectrum with Genghis Khan, simply because they seem ever so slightly less inclined to get us into wars. Voting is all about realising that some bugger has to do it, then holding your nose. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 07:29 AM (#3704815) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw they are still fully committed to working towards the break up of the United Kingdom and independence for Scotland. Well they can't do it without the constitutional consent of the Scottish people, who are as British as anyone else living here. In the meantime you would expect the SNP to fight Scotland's corner. Boris fights London's corner, Maggie fought the City's corner (and fought the public sector tooth and nail into the bargain), we're all fighting our own corners. Why is that? Because vast tracts of the UK get a lousy deal, that's why. We get the politicians we ask for. Our system includes Scottish MPs at Westminster and they have every right to use whatever power they can get to give the Scottish people a better deal. I don't hear you whingeing about the extremely undemocratic deal struck in 2010, when a failing also-ran poor third-place party got to wield power whereas a party with 200 seats more got to wield none at all. If there is going to be a Labour/SNP coalition, which I severely doubt and personally would not like to see, I should like you to explain why you've been so quiet about the ConDems before you start throwing brickbats at the Scots. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 08:11 AM (#3704819) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford neither employers nor politicians can be trusted to ensure a fair wage. Of course not! If there is a pool of workers willing to work for less they will pay less. Lovely for employers. Lovely for those toffs wanting cheap domestics, nannies and gardeners. Desperately hard for workers on the edge, who are also forced to compete for scarce housing, schools and medical services. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 08:45 AM (#3704826) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# Fair Wages for Parliament. Drop their salaries by 60% |
|
28 Apr 15 - 08:45 AM (#3704827) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Yes "Lest we forget" Stevieboy: 1: "the deregulation of the banking system was initiated with great fanfare by Thatcher in the late 80s. New Labour did sod all about it, of course, but the Tories were in full and enthusiastic support right up to the crash." Ehmmmm everybody was in full and enthusiastic support as that deregulated banking sector made enormous profits and poured money into the coffers of the Treasury. IIRC as Scotland's First Minister and erstwhile employee of RBS, Alex Salmond was full of praise for Fred the Shred and hailed the RBS take over of ABN AMRO as a master-stroke of forward planning and genius. 2: Stevieboy DID I SAY that the country was "all hunkydory in 1997?? - Don't think I did (HINT what I DID SAY WAS - "Blair took over in 1997 with one of the healthiest balances ever") - If you cannot tell the difference then no point in discussing the matter, on the basis of you taking me to task on things I do not say. 3: Still doing better than most in the Eurozone |
|
28 Apr 15 - 08:48 AM (#3704828) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: billybob Only 10 more days and it will be over! I have a headache ,going for a lie down. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:15 AM (#3704832) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus GUEST# as the politicians set the minimum wage they should then be paid it - see which way it moves then. Would mean massive unemployment of course but that is the trouble with those who want their cake and eat it. Zero-Hours Contracts - this surprised me: - Those on them represent only 2.3% of the UK workforce (Means that 97.7% of the UK workforce aren't on zero hour contracts) - Voluntary Sector Organisations greatest user of zero hour contracts at 33% - Public Sector comes second at 25% - Private Sector comes third with 17% So the evil bosses exploiting these poor unfortunates would appear to be "Charities" and the Government/Public Sector Employers, with the big bad capitalists in private industry coming a very poor third - WOW who wud a thunk that. Fear not billybob - you've got a US Presidential Election to look forward to - that should start to ramp up in a couple of months time. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:20 AM (#3704833) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,# ". . . as the politicians set the minimum wage they should then be paid it - see which way it moves then." Well said. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:20 AM (#3704835) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Yes Keith. If people are willing to work for less then they will be paid less. But never less than the pitiful minimum wage, which is an small comfort but better than no net. But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage. The Major government fought tooth and nail to get out of the requirement. So jobs are on a level playing field. Our minimum wage could be higher and that would stoke the economy and take more people out of the need for other benefits as top ups. Far better to spend the money on giving employers the confidence to pay more than mop up afterwards. Other than an opinion in a report, which is balanced against other reports anyway, I fail to see how immigration is the main cause of a rush to the bottom? Oh. Hang on. Your post. Silly me... I keep trying to look at them objectively. I do apologise. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM (#3704837) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Well, Billyboy, you mentioned the healthy state off the finances in 1997 (did I argue with that?) and I filled the gap you left, that (among other things) the NHS was struggling. That is not taking you to task. That's making an honest man of you. As for "doing better" than most in the Eurozone, well we're "doing better" than most not in the Eurozone as well, so the implication in your point is not borne out. Perhaps we can talk about what "doing better" means another time. In that conversation, shall we mention food banks, zero-hours contracts, struggling A&E departments, rocketing NHS waiting lists, tens of thousands of disabled people dumped off benefits etc., or not? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:27 AM (#3704838) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome who are also forced to compete for scarce housing, schools and medical services. So, still unaware or unwilling to see that the net effect of migration in the EU is that we have, at worst, no more people and, according to some reports, considerably less people than if there was no migraion in the EU? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 09:37 AM (#3704840) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw What you failed to say about zero-hours contracts, Billyboy, is that the numbers on them shot up by 28% in one year. This government is allowing that culture to become the norm. Let's face it, it does wonders for the unemployment figures, doesn't it? As for which sectors are using them, I think your definitions of sectors could be a little flexible. That could be seen as an attempt to give you homework, but I wouldn't bother if I were you. I don't really give a damn about who uses the contracts. It's the fact that your Tories love them so much, isn't it? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 11:38 AM (#3704880) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus It also does wonders for providing flexibility in the job market - or would you rather see no such thing and massive youth unemployment as currently enjoyed in Ireland; France; Spain; Italy, etc, etc. As for doing better than most not in the Eurozone well yes we are aren't we, but we are tied to the Eurozone via our membership of the EU, far better to trade with the world as we did before and caould do again. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 12:05 PM (#3704886) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Ah yes, that good old Tory mantra, "the flexible jobs market". Translator's note: hire and fire at will, stuff the unions, remove all contractual protection, zero hours contracts rule OK, minimum wage not living wage, just enough part-time hours to keep the plebs off benefits but not enough to put food on kids' plates (off to the food bank, chaps!), a pittance for those on fake apprenticeships, let's call job seekers "self-employed"... Oh yes, let's celebrate the fact that we don't have to count all those millions who can hardly make ends meet, if at all, as "unemployed". And, if there are any left to bugger up the stats, well we can always impose "sanctions" on them at the merest whim of some little Hitler down the Job Centre. But better lay off of them poor non-doms and better make sure we can leave the poor little rich kids the mansion plus some, and don't mention Starbucks or Amazon, and how dare Labour threaten to control those nice private landlords... Welcome to Teribus's glorious haves-'n'-have-nots Tory Britain! |
|
28 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM (#3704889) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton If our politicians do not do as the British people wish, they can be removed at the ballot box. how do we remove the rule makers and ideologues of Brussels? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 12:53 PM (#3704894) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Well let's start off discussing those rules and ideas you don't like first. We're not on straight bananas and cucumbers and the size of duck eggs again, are we? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM (#3704910) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Free movement of labour??? |
|
28 Apr 15 - 02:18 PM (#3704917) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Free to trade with the world eh? I shan't even begin to point out the idiocy beyond that. Contrary to the ramblings coming from the padded cells err sofas in the con club, we don't have a fucking empire. That's why the Conservative party took us into European integration via the common market and successive conservative prime ministers signed further treaties to ensure our inclusion in one of the largest trading blocks in the world. I'd stick to moaning about foreigners if I were you. Your tirade on trade is about as accurate as Farage 's waffle. At least he doesn't pretend to be rational. |
|
28 Apr 15 - 02:39 PM (#3704923) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage. The Major government fought tooth and nail to get out of the requirement. Completely false. EU had nothing to do with it, and it was not an EU requirement. It had been Labour policy since 1986, but they did not get elected until 1997 so it was not enacted until 1998. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 01:21 AM (#3705058) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: MGM·Lion The trouble with our being bound into this "one of the largest trading blocks in the world" is that it is, from our pov & to our detriment & bane, predicated on the fact that its two leading members, France & Germany, have only one thing they really agree about — they both HATE LOATHE AND DESPISE US. Having made things as hard as they could for us to get in [don't get me started on that perfidious, ungrateful, bite·hand·that·feeds·you heap of dribbling pigshit De Gaulle], they eventually conceded to the importunities of the certifiably moronic own-nest-feathering arslikkin Heath for the express purpose of finding some common ground — the process of frustrating us at every possible turn. Out of that stinking organisation is the only way forward if our very polity is to survive. Makes no odds to me. I'm 83 and have no children to worry about, so I'm not going to have to live with the consequences of keeping blindly on this self-destructive track of complacently just sitting there being Aunt Sally and hoping they might come to love us if we put up with it for long enough. So there is clearly only one way to vote -- and do please stop this unworthy evocation of Godwin's Law every time this is pointed out in a disgraceful attempt to blacken the only party promulgating the only policy that can save our nation. And if you think this all sounds maybe a bit paranoid, don't forget the unassailable principle postulated by Joseph Heller et al, that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you. ≈M≈ |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:14 AM (#3705081) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "or would you rather see no such thing and massive youth unemployment as currently enjoyed in Ireland" The long term and massive youth unemployment in Ireland has been alleviated to a great degree from Ireland's membership of Europe and the fact (sad that it is is) that young people are able to move freely about the world to get jobs. Not an ideal solution by any means, but infinitely preferable to the situation that has existed throughout my entire life in Britain - stay at home unemployed. Ireland did extremely well out of membership of Europe until the bankers sent the economy crashing into the sea in flames - what went wrong here is everything that has always been wrong with Britain - corrupt and incompetent politicians an increasingly predatory economic system and a society generated by greed and acquisition as a yardstick for success. "nobody forced people to live beyond their means - that is down to the stupidity of individuals" So - it is stupid for a family, under pressure from banks insisting that money grows on trees, to borrow to say, move out of a sink estate, or add an extra room to their home to accommodate an addition to the family or to seek a better standard of education for their children, but it's good politics to allow those banks to pressurise such people to the point that it destroyed their lives and lost them their homes - destroying the economy - let's blame the stupid borrowers or the immigrants for trusting the professionals. Working people borrowed, not to buy second homes, or have longer holidays or bigger cars - they borrowed to improve their lot slightly as workers - to lift themselves out of the mire to provide themselves with a little more security of existence - no homes in the sun or offshore accounts or tax havens - just a better life. Too much to ask for in today's Brave New World. BRITAIN'S FILTHY RICH WORKERS RUBBING OUR NOSES IN IT |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:20 AM (#3705083) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Yep, sounds very paranoid. The important question about Fred Teeth was "Whose arse was he licking"? Shall we get back to the question now? The core points, it seems to me, are two simple ones. First, do you believe in the welfare state, the rule of law, and access to justice? The conservatives are already dismantling those. Second, the richest 1% in the UK have doubled their money in the last 5 years. Have you? All in it together? Not! |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:25 AM (#3705084) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Premature ejaculation again meant to add: THE WORLD SITUATION Of vourse - as Ake says, we can always vote them out of office - and elect somebody equally corrupt and incompetent and self-serving - then wait another five years and try again.... and so ad infinitum Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM (#3705085) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket They might hate and despise you Michael but who are "they" and who are "us"? Xenophobic? Not even the start of it. I find it amazing that such views still prevail. Meanwhile, The EU commission are bending over backwards to accommodate Cameron 's preferred better terms but within Europe. Keith. - Err. The social chapter contained within The Maastrict Treaty doesn't exist? It is just a Labour manifesto promise????? Wow. I always suspected there was a chance my jibes had a ring of truth about them but it seems you really have been taken in by UKIP leaflets! No doubt you'll be sending another pm to Michael thanking him for his support. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:28 AM (#3705086) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Comments by a New Zealander, Charles Upham VC & Bar, at the time Britain was attempting to Join the Common Market: 1962 - "Britain will gradually be pulled down and down, and the whole English way of life will be in danger." 1971 - "Your politicians have made money their god, but what they are buying is disaster." He then added - "They'll cheat you yet, those Germans." When we went into the Common Market we were joining a "Trading Block" not a political union, when we were asked if we wished to remain in the Common Market we were talking about remaining in a "Trading Block" not whether or not we ultimately wanted any form of United States of Europe. The Conservatives are the only major party that is offering the electorate of the UK a choice in the matter that has far outran the original concept that we voted for in the past. The United Kingdom is one of the largest net contributors to the EU's coffers which to me suggests we put in far more than we get out. In the long term we are better off out of it as a Political Union. We cannot negotiate a damn thing from inside it, we could as an associate member via EFTA, just as the Norwegians have successfully done. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:44 AM (#3705089) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Jim Carroll - 29 Apr 15 - 03:14 AM" Most of that was complete and utter tosh but if you get one of your Milton Malby "fiddler" pals to put a tune to it you would have yet another whinging Irish Ballad or a Country & Western Hit - the choice as they say is yours. By the way they did borrow to buy bigger cars, buy widescreen TV's, take more holidays abroad, wear the fanciest designer trainers, etc. Youth unemployment Rate in the UK = 15.6%. Youth unemployment Rate in Ireland = 21.6% |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:57 AM (#3705093) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Oh dear. Let's listen to dead Kiwis. Scraping the barrel a bit aren't we? Tell you what, why don't you tell us what the debt was as a precentage of GDP when this government was formed and what it is now? Fool |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:05 AM (#3705094) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus "the richest 1% in the UK have doubled their money in the last 5 years." OK then Bridge now tell everybody what percentage of the total taxes on income collected by HMRC that 1% pay. Now I know that Bridge isn't going to do that so here are the figures Ten years ago the richest paid only 20% of all income tax, today Britain's top 1% of earners pay 33% of all income tax collected by HMRC The top 3,000 earners in the country pay more in income tax than 9 million of Britain's lowest paid workers (According to HMRC 29.9 people in the UK pay income tax) The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4's investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer, which is shown tomorrow. Mr Nelson, editor of The Spectator magazine, said yesterday that the new figures 'blow apart' Ed Miliband's claim last week that Britain had become a 'zero zero' country where the richest pay zero tax and the poorest work on 'zero hours' contracts. "In the last tax year, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history," said Mr Nelson. "And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013." AND THIS "The new income tax figures appear to dispel the claim that Britain's richest people are avoiding paying tax. The HMRC already publishes statistics showing that the top ten per cent of earners pay more than 55 per cent of the total income tax. But the latest figures released through the FoI request cast light on the even greater tax burden shouldered by the super-rich. It shows that for the top 0.1 per cent of earners - about 30,000 people with a minimum declared income of £670,000 - they may earn five per cent of the total income but pay 11.3 per cent of all income tax. The Institute of Economic Affairs calculated that the wealthiest 30,000 income tax payers contribute about £18.8 billion in income tax - equivalent to the entire budget of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. For the richest 0.01 per cent, they earn 1.9 per cent of total income but pay 4.2 per cent of total income tax." And what is Ed Miliband aiming to do? Drive them out of the country, so tell me what happens then? Who then has to take up the slack and make up the deficit? - ask Francois Hollande in France they tried the "Miliband/Labour" way and ended up collecting less in tax revenue - squeeze the rich to make the pips squeak and the rich not being mugs move taking their wealth with them. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:07 AM (#3705096) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Oh and the Norwegians? Yeah. Let's be subject to all the things right wing nutters moan about but not be able to influence them. As members, we get to vote on day to day, veto where appropriate on fundamental matters and provide a number of commissioners. Norway get to do as they are told in order to trade tariff free. In fact they conform to some things we managed to opt out of. Be nice to see Tory faces as we are forced to opt back in Looks like more than one here has been taken in by Farage 's lies. Still, we can't all exhibit intelligence. Everybody gets a vote. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM (#3705101) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "Most of that was complete and utter tosh" Course it was - and your saying so makes it so, as usual Which bit was actually "tosh" - going to show us the unemployed miners with their second homes or Rollers. Or maybe the wealth distribution bit is a global myth "By the way they did borrow to buy bigger cars, buy widescreen TV's, take more holidays abroad, wear the fanciest designer trainers, etc." Did they - not on the sink estate I grew up in - they borrowed for the reasons I said. The reason that Fuhrer T launched her 'buy your council home" fiasco was to pay lip-service to the fact that working people wished to improve their lot. An utter disaster about to be revisited. Throwing up the Irish incompetence doesn't ring any balls either - I have no truck for Ireland following Britain's steps - but at least the Irish kids can go to Europe for work without too much of a problem - as I said, not satisfactory, but beats the situation back in the UK where kids are forced to take anything offered to them for whatever crap wages rather than move about and look for work abroad. The U.K. unemployment figures are massaged by the policy of forcing people into taking what is offered at any price - a life destroying policy for any young person with any skill or inclination - just to make them in charge look good and win elections. "Milton Malby "fiddler" pals to put a tune to it you would have yet another whinging Irish Ballad or a Country & Western Hit" But you'd rather indulge in your racist Little Britain' stereo typing. Thatcherite to the core - pity she climbed into bed with Pinochet and dropped the mask Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:29 AM (#3705105) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Keith. - Err. The social chapter contained within The Maastrict Treaty doesn't exist? It is just a Labour manifesto promise????? Yes it exists, but Britain opted out of it. We chose to enact a minimum wage by our own democratic process. The minimum wage WAS "just a Labour manifesto promise." Anything else you need explaining Musket? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:30 AM (#3705106) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus The Norwegians comply with the measures they want to, where they feel they gain an advantage, the ignore the ones where they feel they don't which is why they have 100% control over their agriculture, fishing, their oil & gas industry, finances, etc, etc. As for the "dead Kiwi" - he was perfectly correct wasn't he. As to influencing things inside the EU - the EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop nothing more nothing less - it decides nothing the unelected Commissioners do the deciding - apparently as whims most of the time. See you ignored the point I made about the UK being one of the largest net contributors to the EU ( i.e. we put more in than we get out so we have to be better off if we are out of it) Margaret Thatcher negotiated a rebate for the UK - Tony Blair gave it away on the understanding that the EU's idiotic CAP would be first revised and then scrapped, we lost the lion's share of the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher but was the CAP scrapped - was it F**K, still continues to this day because it benefits France - if you negotiate a deal both sides must live up to it - End result UK shafted again - that is what influence we have being in the EU (Constantly outvoted) and our Commissioners kicked to sidelines in "no-count jobs" - not surprising seeing the downright "crooks" we've sent there. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:53 AM (#3705111) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll By the way One of the benefits of the success of the Irish economy via Europe was an increase in the support for the arts, particularly the traditional arts, which brought about a turnaround of the fortunes of Irish music and brought many thousands of youngsters to it, enabling them to be creative artists and not just factory and farm fodder. Not only has this assisted the Irish economy at home, but it has allowed kids to build careers and musicians and music teachers abroad - and has made traditional Irish music an international phenomenon. Thatcher was the nearest Britain ever came to electing a fascist into office and her contempt for working people, especially young people, as being anything but factory fodder (certainly not creative human beings) is till very much part of Conservative philosophy That is the Christmas the turkeys are being asked to vote for - cold and bleak as ever Jim Carroll Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 06:18 AM (#3705124) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: MGM·Lion 'They might hate and despise you Michael but who are "they" and who are "us"? I made it perfectly clear that 'they' are the Frogs'n'Krauts' and 'us' are the Brits. Don't pretend to be more stupid & [in the true sense] illiterate than you actually are. It is an Act Of Supererogation, as forbidden by the Thirty-nine Articles! Xenophobic? Not even the start of it. I find it amazing that such views still prevail.' But they don't prevail, do they? Just the trouble... ≈M≈ |
|
29 Apr 15 - 06:28 AM (#3705126) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "Frogs'n'Krauts' " Pretty well sums up Britain's outlook on the world down the centuries - little wonder the world hates us - particularly those we bled dry in the name of Empire Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 06:37 AM (#3705128) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll By the way - I would echo Muskie's stupid question - who are they and us. I've never had any problems in any of the countries I visited in Europe or Africa and ventures into parts of Asia - both as an obsessive hitch-hiker in my youth and later a visitor. I was greeted with politeness and on occasion warmth and friendship by just about everybody I met and learned quite a lot because of that. I quite often deepend those relationships by sharing my hatred and mistrust of their and our politicians - the real "them and us" as far as we were concerned. I'm still often struck by what bad tourists many Britons make - the Empire on holiday. Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 07:06 AM (#3705131) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn Getting back to the original Achmelvich point it seems whatever the intentions of the anti-Scottish commentators are, the outcome is more and more Scots seem to be turning to the SNP. Poll yesterday suggested they may win all but two of the seats. Today's Ipsos Mori poll suggests they could in fact win every seat. SNP on 54% with Labour only on 20% and in danger of being overtaken by the Tories. The UKIP vote has fallen back to only 1% which I suspect has helped the Tories. Lib Dems only on 5%. I don't know if these recent polls are rogue but they do show a further momentum. Though even if 54% was correct I don't think it'd mount to every seat as it takes no account of regional differences etc. The Tories could win 2 seats in the south and the Lib Dems could retain places like the Northern Isles whilst some Labour seats need a massive local swing to change hands. Sturgeon has kind of dismissed the polls on her twitter account saying "forget polls as only votes win elections" http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/ |
|
29 Apr 15 - 07:37 AM (#3705135) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Most idiotic statement ever seen on this forum "Steve Shaw - PM Date: 28 Apr 15 - 12:05 PM Welcome to Teribus's glorious haves-'n'-have-nots Tory Britain!" 1: Stevie-Son there will be "haves-n-have-nots" irrespective of who is elected. The "rich" who for some reason you seem to hate are already paying more tax than they have ever done, push them too far and they leave - who then pays "their whack" or do you just let services, benefits, pensions and welfare go to the wall. 2: "Non-Doms" = non-issue really when you take into the equation the wealth they bring into the country - even Labour realised after Red Ed had made his idiotic statement that it would be disastrous to boot them out or bring them into the full income tax fold (Collect in £900 million IF they hang around to pay it and lose £billions in what they bring into the country) Good old Labour dinosaur "class-warfare" type thinking - not surprising you have admitted previously that you are perfectly willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM (#3705150) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod "The "rich" who for some reason you seem to hate are already paying more tax than they have ever done, push them too far and they leave - who then pays "their whack" or do you just let services, benefits, pensions and welfare go to the wall." Presumably, if we're patient and wait long enough, their wealth will "trickle down" and benefit everyone (hurrah!). Any estimates of how long we'll have to wait before this starts happening, Teribus? A couple of million years perhaps? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 09:28 AM (#3705153) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Luckily there are business magnates on both sides of the Atlantic who seem to realise that wealth has nothing to do with how much they have but is dependent on how much people are payed, taxed and spend. I am heartened to see the likes of Robert Reich urgung other business leaders to ensure a healthy economy by paying workers more. OK, they may be in the minority at present but we can but hope others will realise the truth of true prosperiety before long. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 10:17 AM (#3705161) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Genuine question here. If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from? No tricks, it just doesn't add up in my mind. We have no more resources but everyone is gettng more of them. How does that work? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 10:28 AM (#3705165) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Dave the Gnome(you graduated from being a Gnut): "If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from?" Good question...but you may ask, instead, 'If both rich and poor are getting richer, where is the wealth coming from..who finance the candidates and elections??...the poor?????? GfS |
|
29 Apr 15 - 10:50 AM (#3705173) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "Poor getting poorer - NO, quite the reverse in fact" There is no indication whatever that this is the case - your old usual unqualified claims. These are the actual figures - respond to them rather than the bullshit POVERTY IN BRITAIN And no - I don't believe everything I e#read i the press, but I'm happy to respond yto your actual figures Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 11:10 AM (#3705183) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket I wonder if Keith and Terribulus might start believing their own outrageously silly comments? I wonder if we passed that point some time ago. I don't know where they usually spout it but I notice here on Mudcat, many are too intelligent to fall for it, so why they continue to look laughing stocks with their right wing xenophobic diatribe is beyond me. Still, like I said. Everybody gets to vote. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 11:21 AM (#3705193) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Or - if that's too complicated for you - try the Christian take on the matter - Maybe Keith the Christian would care to comment POVERTY IN THE UK Jim Carroll |
|
29 Apr 15 - 11:54 AM (#3705207) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Terribilis, your assertions only make any sort of sense if you assume that everyone should pay out the same proportion of their income in income tax - which is of course tosh. In 1971 the top rate of tax (on unearned income) was 90%. And a damned good thing. The way to stop the feral rich running away is exchange control. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 11:57 AM (#3705208) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge And the assertion that even the poor are getting richer is a lie - About what I expect of the lunatic right here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards |
|
29 Apr 15 - 12:29 PM (#3705220) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link I suppose with statistics there needs to be agreement on the parameters of surveys, and agreed time frames. I have no doubt that our standard of living is higher than our parents. It is also our experience that our kids want today what it took my generation years to attain. There are undoubtably far more out of work than there were when we were younger, but unfortunately the success of media marketing, and general dissatisfaction, together with an entitlement mindset , mean that even though they cannot afford it , too many still spend lots on mobile phones and suchlike, and order takeaways instead of preparing cheaper meals. I remember that when I was on low wages or out of work we were more careful with money. That is our experience, but if yours is different, it may balance out ours. I very much doubt though if the very poorest in the world are doing better. I suspect that many are doing worse. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM (#3705221) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, I wonder if Keith and Terribulus might start believing their own outrageously silly comments? Identify a silly comment of mine Musket. Confident prediction, you can't. You showed your ignorance of how Britain came to have a minimum wage. I put you straight on it. Your outrageously silly comment was, "But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage." WE were not bound by the social chapter. We opted out of it. Minimum wage had been Labour policy since 1986, long before there even was a Maastricht treaty. You got it wrong again. I put you right, again. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:06 PM (#3705259) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw ...together with an entitlement mindset , mean that even though they cannot afford it , too many still spend lots on mobile phones and suchlike, and order takeaways instead of preparing cheaper meals. What a horrible, condescending, condemnatory attitude. Tell me, is that Christian doctrine? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:22 PM (#3705262) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford The poorest folk just now are the working poor. They are the main food bank clients. The housing shortage has inflated their rent bills, and their wages are being squeezed. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM (#3705263) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford (BTW, most food banks are run by churches) |
|
29 Apr 15 - 04:50 PM (#3705285) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus "In 1971 the top rate of tax (on unearned income) was 90%." Yes Bridge and that acted as a massive disincentive, those who made lots did so elsewhere where they did not have to pay 90%. Which is why Mr Ferguson got the information from HMRC that tells us that: "In the last tax year {That would be 2013/2014 presumably because it would be too early for the 2014/2015 figures to be in}, the richest were shouldering a greater share of the burden than any time in history," said Mr Nelson. "And this was achieved after the top rate of income tax was reduced from 50p to 45p in April 2013." Where has the money come from Gnome? The World as a whole has got richer, in the last two decades the world's wealth has doubled - hence the rise of the middle classes right across the globe (BBC World has had quite a good series of articles on it recently) Who finances the candidates Gnome? For over half those standing for Labour at the forthcoming election it is the UNITE Trade Union who make no bones about those candidates being "theirs" to control and do the Unions bidding - just like in the good old days eh? - Three day week anyone? Winter of discontent? The nostalgia will be almost too much to bear, and oh my, how the country will prosper just as it did before eh? Tell us Gnome as an ex-Union Activist where is that Trades Unions get their money from? IIRC subscriptions from members, investments, etc, etc. GUEST,Shimrod - 29 Apr 15 - 11:47 AM Good example of indignant spluttering there Shimrod old son - so how much of your wealth are you trickling down and when? Like you I am retired four pensions to your three, worked 50 years, paid to educate my children all to university level (i.e. did not make the mistake of relying on the State - consciously and deliberately made the necessary sacrifices to do so), assisted them all in purchasing their first cars and their first houses. That was my contribution to "trickling down". Bit different from when I started out, we were told when you start work you make your own way - exactly as described by GUEST,Pete - nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead. What I was "entitled" to? - whatever I worked hard for and saved for. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 05:28 PM (#3705295) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Rich westerners bollocking poor people for daring to have mobile phones? Yeah, right, Billyboy. Well I hope your trickle-downer kids are happy with your largesse. Don't forget to tell them that they got it through your efforts, not their own. A lot of young people aren't so lucky, are they. But sod 'em, eh? Sins of the father and all that? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 05:32 PM (#3705296) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod You know very well, Teribus, that I couldn't give a shit whether your personal wealth trickles up, down or sideways! You may recall, though, that around three decades ago your idol, Thatcher, told us that if certain individuals became 'mega-rich (i.e. multi-millionaires or billionaires) that was OK because their wealth would "trickle down" to the rest of our society. Well we now find that a few individuals have become mega-rich but the gap between rich and poor has become wider and we're still waiting for the promised trickle down effect to happen. So when is the wealth of the MEGA-RICH going to start trickling down, Teribus? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 06:18 PM (#3705304) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw The housing shortage has inflated their rent bills, and their wages are being squeezed. Their rent bills have been inflated by greedy private landlords. You know, those nice people who are paying sod all interest at the moment on their buy-to-let mortgages and who watch the level of housing benefit like hawks so that they can extract every last penny of it from their tenants. Yes, that's where the welfare money goes, Keith, right into the bank accounts of unregulated landlords. And if not there, into the coffers of Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury and M&S and the rest, who pay their workers so little that they have to claim housing benefit and tax credits. What Tesco ought to be paying, we taxpayers cough up, eh? There you go. Torybus's Britain! Never mind, though, at least his kiddies are sorted. They didn't earn it, but why should that bother us in a world in which most young people, through no fault of their own, don't have a cat in hell's chance? But you'd think Teribius actually cared about them, wouldn't you, what with him going on about all that youth unemployment in Spain and all that? You do have to wonder... |
|
29 Apr 15 - 06:28 PM (#3705307) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link We have been involved with lots of youth, Steve, as parents and carers. We often help them out, but allowing them to foster the attitude that the world owes them the luxuries of life will not do them any favours in the long run. And btw, your cheap potshots at my faith don't do you any favours either!. |
|
29 Apr 15 - 07:26 PM (#3705320) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Expressing disgust at your attitude that poor people shouldn't lust after such incredible luxuries as mobile phones Is no cheap shot. That attitude confirms all too clearly that you believe in the undeserving poor. Or that it's virtuous to be poor. That evil sod Mother Teresa would have loved you. OK, wrong religion maybe, but same sentiment. I suppose poor people with no mobiles at least wouldn't waste all their days googling. They could pray more instead, eh? Maybe prayers of thanksgiving for their lot lest the Lord sees them as ungrateful wretches? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 07:59 PM (#3705327) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw ... nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead. Well, lusty and virtuous, upstanding stuff indeed. Except that, in the same post, you tell us that you did absolutely everything for your kids including funding their cars and financing their steps on to the housing ladder. So what you're saying to us is, in moral high tones, "do as I say, not as I do", eh? |
|
29 Apr 15 - 10:02 PM (#3705354) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Anybody spot the irony that Pete-with-the-invisible-friend ACTUALLY thinks his g-d pre-ordains and controls everything including faking the ages of fossils while crying out that the striving of the virtuous will enrich them at the expense of others? Doncha just lurve fundagelical Xtians? Anybody who believes that a proper welfare state is a passport to luxury for spongers needs lessons in reality - and a blindfold and a wall. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 02:22 AM (#3705383) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod "And btw, your cheap potshots at my faith don't do you any favours either!" You should know by now, pete, that uttering the 'f' word around here doesn't automatically lead to people going all solemn, sombre and reverential! |
|
30 Apr 15 - 02:26 AM (#3705384) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Steve Shaw - 29 Apr 15 - 07:59 PM C'mon now Stevie Son quote the whole sentence: "Bit different from when I started out, we were told when you start work you make your own way - exactly as described by GUEST,Pete - nothing to do with Christianity Shaw just parents telling their children the plain truth - you are responsible now for looking after yourself, don't expect anyone else to do it for you - stood me in good stead." The key qualifier there, oh former educator of the masses, and champion of the left, is to be found in the bit highlighted in bold. So absolutely nothing to do with "do as I say, not as I do" just an acknowledgement that things ARE different today, that attitudes ARE different today. Trickle down Shimrod? I don't think anyone ever claimed that trickle down economics would produce more equality between earners, just that everyone would benefit to a greater or lesser extent. So trickle down creates the wealth and it is then government's job to redistribute it. In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago. "Socialists" great at demanding that everything should be shared until it comes to sharing what they have. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 03:24 AM (#3705388) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: The Sandman can we get back to uk elections? paddy power has an inward market mover labour and the snp coalition 11 to one. here are the following odds Labour Minority 13/8 Any Coalition involving UKIP 33/1 Labour Liberal Democrat Green Coalition 66/1 Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition 7/2 Labour Majority 33/1 Labour Green Coalition 66/1 Conservative Minority 9/2 Any Coalition involving the Green Party 33/1 Conservative SNP Coalition 80/1 Conservative Majority 6/1 Conservative UKIP DUP Coalition 40/1 Conservative Liberal Democrat Green Coalition 100/1 Labour Liberal Democrat Coalition 9/1 Conservative Labour Coalition 40/1 Labour UKIP Coalition 100/1 Labour SNP Coalition 11/1 Conservative UKIP Coalition 40/1 UKIP Majority 500/1 Conservative Liberal Democrat DUP Coalition 14/1 Conservative DUP Coalition 50/1 Liberal Democrat Majority 500/1 Labour Liberal Democrat SNP Coalition 25/1 Conservative Liberal Democrat UKIP Coalition 50/1 for the benefit of Steve Shaw this has been copy pasted from paddy powers website |
|
30 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM (#3705390) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST "In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago" Interesting, 36 years ago I could buy 227 pints of bitter a week with my then income. Today my son have to earn almost £800 per week to achieve the same. He works for a local council and earns less than half of that. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 03:56 AM (#3705392) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod "So trickle down creates the wealth and it is then government's job to redistribute it. In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago." But could it be that ordinary people would be even better off if the wealth wasn't all in the pockets of a handful of mega-rich people? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM (#3705396) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST If someone is looking for a job, or several small jobs, I would have though that a mobile phone was a neccessity, not a luxury. How do people on zero-hours contracts know when they are needed ? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:18 AM (#3705397) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Their rent bills have been inflated by greedy private landlords. However greedy they are, they could not inflate rents if there were plenty of houses. As it is, there are insufficient houses for all the people who need them, and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built. Inevitably that forces up the rents and house prices, and greed is not the cause. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:20 AM (#3705398) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,30 Apr 15 - 04:17 AM Don't compare pints, compare minutes on the phone. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:37 AM (#3705400) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll ""Socialists" great at demanding that everything should be shared until it comes to sharing what they have" Socialists do not demand that everything that should be "shared" - this is a hackneyed Tory myth Socialists demand that there should be an equality of opportunity for all so that all people should get an equal chance to compete for the wealth of a country - href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/14/richest-1percent-half-global-wealth-credit-suisse-report">AS DISTINCT FROM TORY PHILOSOPHY let's see if you do any better WITH THIS than you did with the other points you "rubbished" then ran away from. "You got it wrong again. I put you right, again." Back to "I win, you lose" again - the condition people are forced to live in and endure are all a bit of a game to you - is that what your church teaches? "The minimum wage WAS "just a Labour manifesto promise" Which the Tories bitterly opposed, claiming it would cause 2,000,000 to be forced on the dole - it was carried by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Tories only accepted The Minimum Wage when the employers decided they could - it has been used to oppose an enforcement of a Living Wage (a level established necessary for the necessities of living for a single worker or a family), which is significantly above the set minimum. 22% of employers have refused to pay a living wage and there have only been 2 prosecutions of employers paying an unreasonable (starvation-level) wages. Some employers have used the Minimum Wage to drive down the wages of the lower paid by reducing previously agreed levels down to the minimum required. Thanks to Thatcher and her heirs having weakened workers Trades Union rights, employees are no longer able to oppose wage cuts. The reality of the situation is that any sligt rises in workers living standards is being paid for by by those right at the bottom of society - the unemployed and those working at 'breadline' level. And meanwhile, big greed, tax evasion and political corruption remains untouched. Brave New World Jim Carroll |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:37 AM (#3705401) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Well now that the thread has gone beyond Keith 's shaky history and we have a right wing government for the last few years bound by the social chapter, (not opted out any more, despite Keith's insistence) we see the main reason the Conservative party are all anti Europe (apart from their own leader oddly enough.) Membership of a union that requires a level playing field where possible means giving people rights. In any progressive society this is a good thing and it is up to trade and commerce to accommodate the social infrastructure, as we cannot have one without the other. We need to afford a welfare state and not see either trade and commerce as the spawn of the devil nor a welfare state as an imposition. On balance, and despite my cringing on his behalf when you see him debating, Ed Balls is the only potential Chancellor who speaks ad if he realises this. Osborn sees small government as the way forward, which would be fine if we were a strong nation where everybody works for top money and saves up a proportion to look after themselves in later life. Funnily enough, the communities that in the whole have a responsible attitude to caring for their elder relatives are the ones Farage, Daily M*il, Terribulus and bar room bigots dismiss as immigrant spongers. Having spent time regulating residential social care, it seems to me that granny dumping is a traditional British sport enjoyed by the types of people Farage and Cameron seem to attract. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 05:04 AM (#3705403) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built." Another anti-immigration myth Lack of housing has nothing to do with population growth It has to do with land distribution and planning, a crappy morgage policy and the capping of council spending levels - recognised by everybody except those seeking election TELEGRAPH ECONOMIST GUARDIAN Only the Farrageites try to pin it on imigration Jim Carroll |
|
30 Apr 15 - 05:05 AM (#3705404) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Shimrod " ... they could not inflate rents if there were plenty of houses. As it is, there are insufficient houses for all the people who need them, and the population is growing much faster than houses can be built." But there are houses EVERYWHERE! Next time you go anywhere on a train, note how houses are being/have been built on every scrap of land for mile after mile after mile. Are we going to go on building until every square inch of land has been built on? Where does it stop? to date, no politician seems to even be aware of this serious environmental issue/dilemma. My definition of a politician is a person who is wilfully ignorant of the fact that you can't get a quart of liquid into a pint pot! |
|
30 Apr 15 - 05:12 AM (#3705405) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw What twaddle (1): how long did it take you to come up with that wriggle, Billyboy? 'Twas ever thus that some kids are forced by poverty to stand on their own feet and that others, including yours according to your claim, have their upward trajectory smoothed by mummy and daddy. You helped yours along, no criticism there, but kindly acknowledge that you are part of a broad spectrum and let's have a bit less of the "in my day" stuff. What twaddle (2): the people who put rents up are landlords, Keith. No-one forces them. They could be stopped from doing it to excess by legislation. Labour wants that legislation, the Tories vehemently oppose the idea. Stop talking as though landlords are controlled by unstoppable forces. They are not. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:00 AM (#3705420) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Funny how Keith tried to avoid being obvious about his "population growing much faster" yet everyone seems to have noted the immigration note contained in his mealy mouthed UKIP manifesto styled posts. If Keith doesn't want to be associated with UKIP, stopping chanting their scare propaganda would be a good start. oh and this "confident prediction that Musket can't find a silly quote by me." In order for me to find them, at least try to hide them! A psychiatrist friend reckons that if you give people long enough time to talk, their true take on life will come out eventually. Terribulus and Keith seem to be typical case studies. Sorry, but if this is a serious thread, it needs serious debate, not reiteration of political bullshit masquerading as opinion of "real" people. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:02 AM (#3705422) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus GUEST - 30 Apr 15 - 03:48 AM What interesting metrics you use to chart progress - 227 pints eh? Your son can only afford half that number today? Half the numbers of cars on the roads today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO House ownership down half today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO Half the numbers going abroad and further afield for holidays today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO Average number and variety of electrical and electronic goods in houses today less than 36 years ago? - NO Half the numbers and types of benefits available today as compared to 36 years ago? - NO So sorry Guest I will stand by what I said: "In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago" |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:25 AM (#3705429) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw And why are you "better off" if you own your home? Because Thatcher sold off all except the rubbish council houses, cheap, that's why. Like she sold everything else off that she could, cheap, her and Major and Cameron. All the utilities, the railways, Royal Mail, you name it. All to get more and more people into having a stake in shareholding capitalism, all rewarded with a quick buck thanks to too-cheap selloffs, all to encourage them to keep voting Tory cos that what good Tories do, sell stuff that belongs to everybody, built up and paid for with our tax money, into the private hands of the few, cheap. In general people are better off, eh? Tell that to the disabled people driven off benefits, those down the food bank and all those who not only have no job security but who don't even know when their next working hours are coming. You really are an ostrich, aren't you? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:27 AM (#3705431) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Rising Child Poverty Breadline Britain Homelessness http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866675/Growing-gap-rich-poor-Britain-two-decades-means-economy-9-smaller.html The Cost of poverty |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:28 AM (#3705432) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, Keith 's shaky history Will you identify any error of history from me. No. You can't. Can I identify an error of history from you. Yes. Most recently your claim that our minimum wage was provided by EU. It was a Labour policy implementation. Steve, if there were plenty of houses to go around, prices and rents would not be inexorably rising. If a landlord has people competing to rent his property, he will accept the highest not the lowest bid. The result is that everyone has to accept a poorer property, but those already at the bottom have literally nowhere else to go. It is fact that despite an existing housing crisis, the population has been allowed to rise much faster than homes can be built. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:33 AM (#3705434) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford From Jim's Telrgraph link. 2.) The number of housing completions has fallen behind population growth The CBI believes Britain needs to build 240,000 houses a year to keep up with population growth, or around four homes for every 1,000 people. In some parts of the country, we're building half that, according ot the ONS. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM (#3705435) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket I know there are three of us, but which of us said the minimum wage was provided by Brussels? I can't really speak for the other two Muskets but by agreeing to share a log in, it helps if we all understand how government works. As opposed to your rather odd tirade over something else you evidently don't quite understand. If you can't say anything useful, try not to make things up in order to shout at people who see through you eh? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:58 AM (#3705438) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "The CBI believes Britain needs to build 240,000 houses a year to keep up with population growth" More attempts at out-of-context point scoring Keith- as with poverty, you are ever with us The articles privided show clearly that the means to construct adequate housing exists and it is the failure to address that fact that cuases homelessness - not an increase in population Of course an increase in population adds to housing needs, as does any child leaving home for the first time or any couple gegging married and starting families or the deterioration of existing housing stock.... or the hudred other neds for building. It is the failure to deal with the facilities available that causes the problems - not the fact of a rise in population. Addressing these problems not only provides houses, but creates wealth and most important - jobs. Your crowd have neither the desire nor attention to deal with any of these. Stop trying to win prizes - it underlines your idiocy Jim Carrooll |
|
30 Apr 15 - 08:14 AM (#3705442) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw "It is fact that despite an existing housing crisis, the population has been allowed to rise much faster than homes can be built." Interesting use of "been allowed to" and "can be" in that sentence. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 08:14 AM (#3705443) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Causes of homelessnes, according to Shelter "unemployment poverty a lack of affordable housing housing policies the structure and administration of housing benefit wider policy developments, such as the closure of long-stay psychiatric hospitals." Jim Carroll |
|
30 Apr 15 - 08:18 AM (#3705444) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: The Sandman Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 08:43 AM (#3705448) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST Cars on the road ... yes my son has a car to get to work as there is very little public transport. Round here the first bus is at 08.00pm he starts work at 07.30 last bus is at 18.50pm House ownership .... on his salary he wouldn't even a interview with a bank never mind a mortgage Foreign Holidays ..... in his dreams I was far better of 36 years ago than he will ever be (at least until I pop my clogs) The bank of Mum and Dad will no doubt be able to help him but that is not true of many, many people. He should be able to earn a living wage, as it is he is more or less on the poverty line. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 08:57 AM (#3705450) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Nigel Parsons The articles privided show clearly that the means to construct adequate housing exists and it is the failure to address that fact that cuases homelessness - not an increase in population Of course an increase in population adds to housing needs, as does any child leaving home for the first time or any couple gegging married and starting families or the deterioration of existing housing stock.... or the hudred other neds for building. Jim, You can't have it both ways. If a child leaving home automatically requires an additional property, then two persons marrying should free-up a property, not require an additional one. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 09:00 AM (#3705451) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, I know there are three of us, but which of us said the minimum wage was provided by Brussels? "But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage." |
|
30 Apr 15 - 09:25 AM (#3705457) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "But without EU membership and the social chapter, we wouldn't have a legal minimum wage." Still scoring points The Tories only accepted the Minimum Wage when their masters (big business) told them it was in their favour to do so. Membership of Europe puts Britain in the world spotlight - take that spotlight away and god knows what this particularly predatory pair would get up to. "then two persons marrying should free-up a property" Sorry Nige Dpn't follow that - what are you suggesting - that when I child leaves home to marry then it should be mandatory for those left behind to rent out his/her room? Wouldn't put it past this lot to put that into practice either. "I was far better of 36 years ago" Thirty years ago I had far more security in my job because I had a voice in my working life via my Trades Union - all gone - no more tomorrow Jim Carroll |
|
30 Apr 15 - 10:02 AM (#3705462) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford It was a Labour initiative and had nothing to do with EU. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 10:55 AM (#3705479) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome What effect does net EU migration have on housing? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 11:15 AM (#3705483) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Oxford University Migration Observatory. "Positive net migration may affect house prices and rents. In the case of social housing, where there is no price mechanism, positive net migration can lead to a shortage or increase shortage of social housing. The magnitudes of these impacts depend on the responsiveness of the supply of housing to changes in demand. The impact of immigration on housing can also be expected to vary across local areas with different housing markets and experiencing different scales of migrant inflows and outflows. There can also be important inter-relationships between the owner occupier sector and the private rented sector. For example, the increased demand for rented accommodation may encourage more investors to enter the buy-to-let market, which in turn could increase house prices." http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing%20-%20Migrants%20and%20Housing%20in%20the%20UK_0.pdf |
|
30 Apr 15 - 12:08 PM (#3705498) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Ah Stevie: 1: "why are you "better off" if you own your home? Because Thatcher sold off all except the rubbish council houses, cheap, that's why." EHM Stevie, you are better off if you own your own home primarily because everything you then spend on accommodation you are in effect spending to your benefit, your mortgage repayments mean that you are acquiring an asset that is yours, you are not just handing money to someone else (i.e. Rent). Town and City Councils could no longer afford the upkeep of their Council Housing Stock and they were rapidly falling into ruin creating new slums. If selling such property off to those former tenants who wished to purchase the homes they had lived in for years was such a bad idea, why was the practice not halted when Liebour took over in 1997? Note your list of Prime Minister magically absolves Blair and Brown. Talking about selling stuff off cheap - Gordon of Cartoon could give Master-Classes at it. 2: "Tell that to the disabled people driven off benefits" Does that include the "Ooooh me back, its me back Doctor"-types who are then given disability benefits and a blue badge and their next appearance in public is in a Crown Court charged with bilking the State for tens of thousands? 3: "those down the food bank" Ah you'll be telling us all that the food banks and feeding over one million people a year next - hope you don't because that would be a lie wouldn't it. Food Banks are an emergency safety net, and they are used as such they are not the sole source of food for many, if any at all, according to the Trussell Trust issue of more than two three day food packs to any one individual throughout the course of a year is uncommon. 4: Living without job security - describes my working life from 1972 until 2001, but then Stevie-boy, I have always started looking for my next job early, I have been prepared to shift companies, working locations worldwide and take on what jobs were on offer. I also invested in myself to gain the skill-set that was going to be required to keep myself in work - didn't just sit back demanding a job on my doorstep, then mope about moaning about it all being someone else's fault and someone else's responsibility. Get some sort of sense of perspective/proportion those on "Zero-hour contracts represent less than 3% of all those working in the UK? If such contracts did not exist they would be out of work. You really are a clown, aren't you? |
|
30 Apr 15 - 12:26 PM (#3705502) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Last response to anonymous GUEST You described your son as working for less than £400 per week, so it is close to that. Considering the packages that have been on offer for first time home owners neither yourself or your son could have tried very hard. You say you were better off 36 years ago than he is today 1: Were you the same age as he was? 2: He works for the local council you say, who did you work for? 3: Your skill-set and your job was? Did you work for the council like he does? 4: What is his work ethic? what was yours? You are comparing two specific cases I am speaking in general, you are therefore comparing apples to oranges. I will stand by what I said previously: "In general people are far better off today than they were 36 years ago, and most certainly better off than they were 60 years ago." |
|
30 Apr 15 - 01:08 PM (#3705510) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Now Billyboy is starting to predict the lies he thinks I may tell. Very amusing. Now let me just tell you something, you offensive fellow. An 86-year-old close relative of mine has rheumatoid arthritis and COPD and can hardly walk. When we take her shopping we have to push her around in a wheelchair. She has heart failure that causes her legs to swell up like balloons. So three years ago I helped her to get a blue badge. It expired a couple of months ago so I had to go through the whole palaver again. The bureaucracy I endured both times was a bloody nightmare and you have to wait for weeks to find out whether you're going to get one. What I suggest you do, before slagging off people with genuine and severe disabilities, is to get down to your town hall and make some polite enquiries about what you do to get a blue badge (and don't think you can short-cut that by looking at nice friendly council websites - it ain't like that in real life, I assure you). I think you may find it an eye-opener. Oh, I forgot. You're Mr-I've-done-all-right-and-stuff-the-rest, aren't you, eyes tight shut. As for your slur about people defrauding the benefits system, last I heard it was about 0.5% of claims. Contrast that with the hundred billion not paid in tax by those who oughter and about whom you are silent (except for defending those non-doms, I seem to remember, on the grounds that they hold the country to ransom by threatening to move out). As for those zero-hour contracts, just think of how the unemployment figures would look if they didn't exist. Worse than anything under New Labour, and those zero-hour contracts shot up by 28% in one year. The Tories love them because you don't have to pay benefits and they make the numbers look good. But if you happen to on be one, you can't pay the rent, you can't borrow and you can't get a mortgage, exactly, can you? And you can stop pretending that I supported Blair and Brown. I hereby declare, as I have often said, that I detest the pair of 'em. As Gorgeous George said, two cheeks of the same arse. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 01:43 PM (#3705515) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Bonzo3legs I am being paid at the same amount as I was at about 1975, so allowing for inflation, I am being paid considerably less! "Sutch" is the job market in 2015. But as "Sutch" said, best way to shorten the dole queues is to make them stand closer together!!! |
|
30 Apr 15 - 01:45 PM (#3705516) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link just to point out....once again....that it was not me who referred to evolutionism in this thread, but since Richard has raised it yet again.......no I don't think God faked the ages of fossils....they don't come with an age on them, and frequently dating methods give varying ages, and even sometimes give millions of yrs on rocks of known more recent age. he obviously don't mind exaggeration though, since he reads far more into my post than I either expressed or meant. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 01:47 PM (#3705518) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Positive net migration may affect house prices and rents. Presuming that positive net migration means that more people are coming into the country than leaving I have another question. Is the migration between the UK and other EU countries positive or negative? How many older couples leave their over large houses for a place in the sun while how many workers from the UK take up more than a shared house or flat? Immigrants driving up house prices and reducing wages may be good soundbites but need to be looked at more carefully. I quote once more The (UN) High Commissioner noted that "while migration and refugee issues are completely valid topics for public debate, it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction, exaggeration or blatant xenophobia. History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonizing foreigners and minorities, and it is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used in a variety of countries, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers." |
|
30 Apr 15 - 03:12 PM (#3705530) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Dave, for year ending September 2014, UK to EU 89000 EU to UK 251000 |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:30 PM (#3705545) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge I see the right wing idiots are rolling out again the lie that benefit fraud costs lots - while conveniently forgetting that tax avoidance and evasion costs the country FAR more and has FAR fewer resources devoted to it. Opportunistic scum. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:46 PM (#3705550) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST I am amazed by how little some people seem to know of the real world. 36 years ago I was almost the same age as my son is now. I worked at the time for the NHS, similar pay rates to councils His work ethic is fine, he's a grafter and always has been The cheapest property where we live is approx. £150,000 To get a mortgage he would need a deposit of £60,000, the options I have just looked at will not lend my son and his partner any more than £98,0000 (his partner is female just case there is a remote chance you that MIGHT be biased) How the hell is he supposed to accumulate £60,000 when he can barely make ends meet a sit is. Perhaps you should visit estates in Liverpool, Salford even Oxford and see how people have to cope. It seems you do not really have a clue. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 04:51 PM (#3705551) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Not only that, Richard, but the government targets suspected benefit fraud with legendary vehemence yet is notoriously soft on tax evasion. In spite of that, benefit fraud, last count, amounted to just over a billion, about 0.7% of the overall bill. Contrast that with what could be around 150 billion in unpaid tax. Billyboy has clearly fallen for the number one Tory softening-up tactic of demonising all benefits claimants in the eyes of the public before kicking some of the most vulnerable people in society in the bollocks. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 05:45 PM (#3705557) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome 2014 is just one year. How many people have left the UK since EU borders opened? How many have arrived? Statistics in isolation do nothing. Anyone can blindly accept what they are told by 'experts'. I am happier questioning them. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 06:10 PM (#3705564) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw By the way: for the benefit of Steve Shaw this has been copy pasted from paddy powers website Doesn't benefit me. I'm not a betting man. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 06:17 PM (#3705567) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus Ah but as a lawyer Bridge you should know perfectly well that tax avoidance is perfectly legal, understandable and sensible - everyone should do it. You should also know that tax evasion is illegal. So how much of your £150 billion is legal avoidance and what portion of it is illegal tax evasion? The Government are the ones that make the rules governing tax, which makes them complicit in any case of tax avoidance - true? Any idea where the Kinnock's got their £millions, or the Blair's for that matter. Stevie-boy stop spluttering, there's a good chap, benefit fraud that the authorities know about amounted to - what about the freeloaders they have yet to detect. Bonzo just on inflation you are now working for one-tenth of what you were earning in 1975 and as the costs of damn near everything that needed to live in 1975 has gone up by 831.67% - I'd say that you should have starved to death sometime in the 1980s - you could of course have been a multi-millionaire in 1975, you could of course have been a man of independent means with no need to live off your wages, or you could of course just be bullshitting. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 06:19 PM (#3705568) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton " Not only that, Richard, but the government targets suspected benefit fraud with legendary vehemence yet is notoriously soft on tax evasion." Ha Ha Ha......of course they are soft on tax evasion....of course they bail out the banks which fail....of course the bent bankers avoid jail. Of course the system cannot be seen to be failing, so they throw you "gay marriage" and you think you have equality. We vote for capitalism and that means the system trumps everything else, democracy, justice and the right to a meaningful life. Don't sounds so surprised when they stick it up you, if you didn't see it coming, you deserve it. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 06:50 PM (#3705575) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw I'm a patient man, Billyboy, so let me repeat. The government pursues benefit fraud (and pursuing it is a very popular pursuit now that Duncan-Smith has groomed the public) with enthusiasm and vehemence. Yet they can find less than one percent fraud. Google benefit fraud and see how they'd like us all to snoop on each other. Yet less than one percent, eh? Cor. All those claimants making the bankers and tax evaders look like they're nicking Spangles from Woolies! And you call me a clown... Akenaton, go and have another six pints. Don't forget it's only Friday tomorrow, so you have to get up. Maybe things will look clearer to you in the morning. |
|
30 Apr 15 - 07:43 PM (#3705581) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Here's one for Billyboy to chew over. Research done in 2013. The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are: - Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34. Pick the bones out of that one, Terribilitas! |
|
01 May 15 - 03:08 AM (#3705620) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Steve Shat: "- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34." Think that's bad??...on this side of the pond, you should check out the latest reports of the Clinton's 'Charitable Organizations'..and the 'administrative costs', versus the actual money received in the actual 'charity work'..... Umm, would you'd say that was 'political corruption?....or charitable organizations(in general)??? We must always consider the source, from where we form our opinions.... GfS |
|
01 May 15 - 03:45 AM (#3705628) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Richard Bridge Oh dear. I have to agree with something Akenhateon wrote. It's probably the reason that no government has enacted a general anti-avoidance principle. It would cure a LOT of abuse by the rich if we simply reversed IRC -v- Westminster (which it the answer to Terribilis). |
|
01 May 15 - 03:51 AM (#3705630) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,achmelvich this is just crazy. i would want to vote green here in cumbria if there wasn't a chance that the tories might get in. as ever, i was thinking that i'll have to vote labour again to try to keep the tories out. now, i hear that labour would rather have the tories back in government than co-operate with another slightly left of centre party. well, that's me finished with any remaining hope that labour might be a bit better than the tories. i'll just have to get busy with my campaign to get the border moved south - more likely than labour remembering what they are supposed to be about. why do all 3 of the largest westminster parties seem so keen to encourage the scottish independence movement - thought we were supposed to be 'better together' |
|
01 May 15 - 04:03 AM (#3705634) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket "They throw you "gay marriage" (sic) and you think you have equality." I don't know about you Bridge, but for me, saying you agree with something Akenhateon said requires very clear explanation because you get little gems like that laced in his waffle. It must be a form of Tourettes. Mind you, your shared passion for saying your whole life is someone else's fault seems to resonate with an affinity. Just make sure you don't get labelled with his fear of people who are different eh? You Bridge, are at least a member of the human race . |
|
01 May 15 - 04:14 AM (#3705639) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus "Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent" To paraphrase the words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well they would, wouldn't they". Official "estimates" - Do you honestly expect any "Official" investigating their own departments standards, procedures and performance to come out with anything that would indicate they are doing anything other than a superb job!!! How naive can you get Stevieboy?? Had they done the job that you would like to make us think that they had done there would have been no bloody "estimate" about it they should have been able to tell to the penny the exact figure and extent of the abuse. The "Public" conception I would venture is not far from the mark. Wriggle all you like Bridge tax avoidance by applying existing Government set rules to your own benefit is perfectly legal. |
|
01 May 15 - 04:17 AM (#3705640) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford dave, 2014 is just one year. How many people have left the UK since EU borders opened? How many have arrived? Oxford University Migration Observatory, The accession of eight East European countries (A8 countries) to the EU in 2004 led to a significant increase in the inflow of EU citizens to the UK. The average annual Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) inflow of EU citizens (excluding British citizens) for 2004-2012 was around 170,000, compared to 67,000 during 1997-2003. More... LTIM estimates suggest that net migration of A8 citizens was 30,000 in 2012. During 2004-2012, LTIM data suggest that total net migration of A8 citizens was 423,000; however, the ONS has indicated that this is an underestimate. More... Results from the 2011 Census suggest that 2.7 million residents of the UK were born in other EU countries. About 1.1 million of those (42%) were born in countries which joined the EU in 2004 or afterwards. More... The number of A8 citizens working in the UK number was estimated at 723,000 in the third quarter of 2013 according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS). More... |
|
01 May 15 - 04:52 AM (#3705646) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll Fascinating to see the die-hard right ignoring all the facts of life in Britain today and plough on with their "vote for us" - line Must be an election coming up And Keith is still "winning" something Jim Carroll |
|
01 May 15 - 04:57 AM (#3705648) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Well, thanks for your unexpected support Jim. To be fair, I am sure many others spotted Musket's howler but chose not to humiliate him. What am I like?! |
|
01 May 15 - 05:02 AM (#3705649) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn Achmelvich you are spot on. You could hardly make it up. Several weeks ago Scottish Labour were lambasting Sturgeon over the 'now discredited' leaked report that said she'd prefer to see Cameron as PM again rather than have the SNP actually work with Miliband as a PM. Now it seems that it is Miliband himself who would rather see Cameron as PM again. I can see that this will go down well with hard edged never to be moved Labour supporters in Scotland. Kezia Dugdale is already hailing it as the SNP's bluff being called. Head in the sand stuff though. I imagine many ordinary voters will just shake their heads in disbelief and even more will switch over to the Nats. I honestly won't be surprised if Labour end up even behind the Tories sometime soon. And if they end up being also rans in Scotland long term then yes, they can still win a UK majority overall in the future, but the chances of them doing that gets so much harder. |
|
01 May 15 - 05:11 AM (#3705650) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Isn't it amazing how Billyboy is so given to banging us all round the head with statistics all the time about wars and stuff, yet, when presented with findings that don't suit his prejudices, he has a hissy fit. And it wasn't even dead historians this time. It was his beloved Tory government. Achmelvich, don't give up. Miliband had to say what he did in order to placate English voters. Post-election realpolitik, as ever, will be an entirely nother thing. |
|
01 May 15 - 05:40 AM (#3705654) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST Mr Teribus, you have not answered my question as to how my son may accumulate the necessary £60,000 deposit he would need to obtain a mortgage of £98,000 to buy the cheapest house round here. Perhaps he should rob a bank, mug a little old lady. Do you have any other suggestions from your vast fount of knowledge about poverty in the UK. |
|
01 May 15 - 05:48 AM (#3705655) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Musket's howler 😂😂😂 The reason everybody is laughing at you and not with you is that it is common knowledge that Labour policy was to enact the social chapter as enacted in The Maastrict Treaty. The concept of a minimum wage us contained within it. Of course Labour wished for it. Of course they enacted it. And by doing so ensured a future Tory government couldn't reverse it! Were you really a teacher? Honest? Says a lot about the piss poor applications for jobs by younger people I have waded through over the years.., |
|
01 May 15 - 05:56 AM (#3705656) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Whilst I am here. Anyone noticed that anything Terribulus is impressed with he reckons is true but anything doesn't want to believe gets the Mandy Rice Davies treatment? I notice Jim said Keith is winning something. Keith took the sarcasm at face value which is predictable but funny. To date his "winning" seems to be the support of Terribulus and Akenhateon. Well done. You ought to go out together for a pint and put the world to rights. 🙊🙉🙈 Just don't invite Jim or me eh? (or the Musket that enjoys winding Jim up. That would be too much...) |
|
01 May 15 - 06:14 AM (#3705660) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus "Teribus - 30 Apr 15 - 12:26 PM Last response to anonymous GUEST" Only your word for it that you even have a son and could afford 227 pints a week in 1975 which is why you will not be getting any further comments from me. But as a parting shot here are a few suggestions: 1: He could try saving - do not say that it can't be done, hundreds of thousands of home owners started out that way - all it depends upon is having the will to do it and the determination to carry it through. 2: Think about acquiring skills that will lead to better paid work 3: Move and get a job elsewhere 4: His partner I take is part and parcel of this isn't she? 5: Since when was it a requirement to have a deposit of 40% of the purchase price of any property in order to get a mortgage? Last two I put down the requirement was only 10% - it helps if you talk to the right people. |
|
01 May 15 - 06:25 AM (#3705665) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw I seem to remember that you relied on Keith for some of your facts about historians. :-) |
|
01 May 15 - 07:01 AM (#3705669) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST So, I am called a liar, then interestingly Mr Teribus doesn't want to enter into further conversation perhaps he knows there is no answer to my son's dilemma but hasn't got the guts to admit it as it undermines his view of poverty in the UK today. 1. How the hell can my son save when the money he earns is barely enough to cover the expenses of living. 2. Very little opportunity for training in his particular field and neither is he academically inclined. 3. Move and get a job elsewhere,why do I think of Norman Tebbitt at this point. 4. Far too personal 5. It's not a requirement to have 40% as a deposit, the bank will only lend £98,000, not enough for any kind house round here. |
|
01 May 15 - 07:01 AM (#3705670) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "all it depends upon is having the will to do it and the determination to carry it through." Utter rubbish in the present climate created by Tory and wannabe Tory Governments. Most of it is Tebbitism in the extreme. Secure employment is a thing of the past in Britain The greatest and most cynical (and unimaginative) con this lot are putting forward is the 'by your council" house one - especially after the last catastrophic fiasco. It is totally untrue that the Thatcher regime launched it because councils could not afford to maintain their housing stock - Thatcher deliberately capped council spending in order to destroy community facilities and throw those dependent on it to the privatised wolves. I worked for Liverpool Corporation Housing Department as a maintenance electrician and for Manchester Council rewiring houses The schemes were well-supervised, efficient, cheap and reliable and most importantly, they ensured that the houses were safe. All that went with Thatcher's thugs. Selling council houses was a vote-catching ploy devised to win votes from those who could afford to do buy. It turned what had previously been homes into commodities - a supposed foot on the Capitalist ladder. Instead, it brought about homelessness and hardship for the worst off (their own fault according to Terrytoon, for buying the lie and borrowing above their means) One of the landmark atrocities was perpetrated by Thatcher's friend, Dame Shirley Porter. She moved an entire group of residents out of their Council tower block in Westminster on the pretence that it would be modernised. She moved them into another block which was riddled with asbestos and modernised the original one to be sold off privately - to tenants who, she believed, would be more likely to vote Conservative, a gerrymandering, murderous ploy to secure Conservative control of the borough. HOMES FOR VOTES SCANDAL On being found out, she was fined forty-two million, paid only twelve of that and fled to Israel. It is no surprise that Thatcher's first significant action in Parliament was to discontinue free milk for schoolchildren - stamp on 'em while they're young!!! This pair of clowns has not responded to one single fact of the reality of life for working peple other than suggest "Get on your bike". Heard it, been there, done that and saw it create the present mess, which they choose to blame on immigration. Jim Carroll |
|
01 May 15 - 07:24 AM (#3705672) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST I heard a suggestion that Thatcher sold people their council houses so they could not afford to go on strike. Mortgage lenders would not take the same view of missed payments as would a Labour controlled council. |
|
01 May 15 - 07:34 AM (#3705673) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Well, Teribus, I can't speak for Guest and his son's circumstances as I don't know these folk (though I note that that particular impediment doesn't stop you from getting all judgemental...), but times have changed. When I bought my first house in 1978 I waltzed right into a 100% mortgage, scarcely a question asked, and I was at that time the only earner. Before that, there had been two massive house price booms, so when you were buying yours you were probably talking four figures or very low five figures for the house, right? A tad different today, huh? Ten percent deposit gets you a high interest rate today. Twenty percent gets you a better one but that means a deposit of 40 grand on a 200 grand house (not exactly a mansion anywhere, eh?) plus more renting plus removal costs. Yeah, he can always do a Tebbit and ride his bike to a different area, where his chances of getting a much better-paid job in today's climate are diddley-squat. And you have no right to make comments about his partner without knowing their precise circumstances, I reckon. Sadly, the world is not frozen in time in that rose-tinted era when you were buying your cheap houses, Mr Smugness-personified. |
|
01 May 15 - 07:37 AM (#3705675) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Teribus "It is no surprise that Thatcher's first significant action in Parliament was to discontinue free milk for schoolchildren" Massive thread drift by Christmas, but he does like to splutter on about Thatcher. Pssst Christmas, you a Minister of State for Education you have been given your allocation of resources from the Treasury and you know savings have to be made, you can spend that money on: 1: Books 2: Teachers 3: Milk As Minister of State for Education which of those three is least important to the education of the nations children? Why didn't the local Labour city and town councils subsidise milk? Why didn't the Liebour Government of Tony Blair reintroduce it? From memory even in my day most of it was wasted in any case. Now some other inconvenient facts for you Christmas: a) Margaret Thatcher was Minister of State for Education in 1971, when according to you she "snatched the milk" from the nation's primary school children. b) Ever read Damian Barr's book "Maggie & Me" Christmas? If not perhaps you should and you could then explain to us how Damian Barr could be writing about how much he loathed the daily dose of "school milk" that he was forced to down in 1984? c) The true story of milk's exit from the classroom is as follows: - 1968, Harold Wilson's government removed free milk from all 11- to 18-year-olds - 1971, the Heath administration took away milk from 7- to 11-year-olds in England and Margaret Thatcher was singled out for everlasting blame. - 1980, was when milk was stopped for infant classes in England - 1984 as recollected by Damian Bar, who was still drinking school milk aged eight, when his teacher announced to his class "The Prime Minister of England has stopped free milk in schools down there and now she's trying to stop it up here as well" Liked this by journalist Rowan Pelling: "No one ever mentions the fact that many schoolchildren loathed that beastly bottle. Indeed, I have always felt that Thatcher helped liberate children from the tyranny of "drink it all up!" But then no politician championed personal freedom as fiercely as she did." |
|
01 May 15 - 07:38 AM (#3705676) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw You are the most aggressive and insulting name-caller on these threads, Teribus. Do think about casting out your plank. |
|
01 May 15 - 07:45 AM (#3705677) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Er, no, it was Maggie under Heath (now there's a picture) who ended universal school milk, not Wilson. I thought you said you checked your sources. |
|
01 May 15 - 07:56 AM (#3705679) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Oops, I'd better withdraw that last one. My source was a Beeb article which turned out to be less than accurate. I demand my licence fee back. :-( |
|
01 May 15 - 08:00 AM (#3705681) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket He does check his sources. He goes out of the way to avoid uncomfortable truths. Remember Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse's sketch "The Self-righteous Brothers"? It was based on Keith and Terribulus sat in the best room of the pub shouting proclamations whilst Akenhateon shouts on support from the tap room. Eeh. Fancy that. Most people got their knowledge of history from comedy script writers? How's that? Did they get it from you and Pte Acheson VD & Bar? |
|
01 May 15 - 08:19 AM (#3705684) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket We have to promise not to laugh though Dave |
|
01 May 15 - 08:40 AM (#3705688) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Anyone taking odds on how long this thread will last? :D |
|
01 May 15 - 08:46 AM (#3705689) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton My you ARE doing well lads, one more heave and you'll have the thread closed. Do you find it impossible to seriously debate an awkward(for you) issue. Are your ego's so big that you can't even bring yourselves to acknowledge that others may have made a valid point? Have you any idea how boring your smart arse jibes are to normal people.....Teribus is obviously right, you spend too much time watching and regurgitating TV "comedy". Doesn't do a lot for your credibility, which was already shot by the forced admission that you were three second rate comedians rather than one. |
|
01 May 15 - 08:57 AM (#3705694) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Ake, I am disappointed. You promised not to engage me again. Liar as well as bigot. Now go and fuck off. |
|
01 May 15 - 09:07 AM (#3705696) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton IRMC |
|
01 May 15 - 09:15 AM (#3705698) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Allan Conn The poster posting as Guest is perfectly correct. How much you can borrow depends not just on the Loan To Value; but on your income and how the income is made up. If your income is made up of bonuses or overtime and not just basic salary then that can reduce your capacity to borrow. Not just current credit arrangements but student loans coming off your wages reduces the capacity to borrow. One person buying on a salary of £25K may be able to borrow less than 2 people with a combined £25K salary with some lenders. Also contract type is important. Many people are not on permanent contracts nowadays and it can be hard to get a mortgage at all under those circumstances. There would seem to be no reason to doubt someone when they say their son could only borrow a certain amount! Theoretically you can borrow up to 95% with many lenders but at that level the credit scoring needs to be very good. Not talking about bad credit just there needs to be a history of credit, not changed house too much, be on the electoral roll etc. If youngsters are living in areas with high prices it must be horrendous. Problem is live further away from the work place to reduce the house and lenders are now taking commuting costs into the affordability factor too. You can't compare getting a mortgage today with even five years ago, |
|
01 May 15 - 09:16 AM (#3705699) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Musket Our ego's what? Learn to write eh? There are lots of valid points. You however have a knack of twisting everything to fit your somewhat unfortunate opinion of millions of people who don't deserve your hatred. I would like this thread to be about the election and carry on, but it isn't easy to debate whilst you and the two idiots who see immigrants under the bed insist on going further than giving opinions and dragging up porkies to undermine others. I have no problem with Keith and his mate being right wing reactionary bigots, there are clearly many like them, but they shout down valid views. Are you meaning them when you complain? Why do they do it? Obviously because they lack conviction in what they type. You however could end up with a conviction if there is any justice in the world. I note that someone has just been given a suspended sentence and had to pay huge costs after Stonewall complained to the police over homophobic tweets. Keep going. I'm looking for more properties to turn into holiday rents and last year bought my first Argylle property. |
|
01 May 15 - 09:34 AM (#3705702) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton When you've lived here 70 years you MIGHT learn how to spell the name. There again absentee landlords don't need an to learn anything, just come "thundering in" |
|
01 May 15 - 09:37 AM (#3705704) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, it is common knowledge that Labour policy was to enact the social chapter as enacted in The Maastrict Treaty. The concept of a minimum wage us contained within it. It is not common knowledge. It is bollocks. Read this Institute For Government document. You will find no mention of Maastricht, Social Contract or EU. "A national minimum wage for the UK had been under debate in the Labour Party for decades. However, in much of that time it was not only opposed by business, but also was a source of controversy – or apathy – within the labour movement. The commitment to introduce a national minimum wage featured in Labour's 1992 manifesto, but was a source of vulnerability rather than a winning policy. Yet, two decades later, the machinery for setting the minimum wage established in the early years of the Labour government survived a change of government and came top of our poll of political studies academics for best policy of the last 30 years. This case study looks at how this policy turnaround was achieved. " http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_mimimum_wage.pdf |
|
01 May 15 - 09:39 AM (#3705705) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: akenaton Perhaps you haven't noticed, but immigration is a huge issue in the coming election, having a bearing on almost every facet of political policy......its not all about homosexuals you know. |
|
01 May 15 - 09:49 AM (#3705712) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll "Massive thread drift by Christmas, but he does like to splutter on about Thatcher." Isn't it odd how whenever the going gets tough, the rightists scurry behind "thread drift" -every day is Goundhog Day for some people o thread drift - today's Tories are the natural and enthusiastic heirs of the Countess, even though they had to ditch her when her extremism became an embarrassment (still get a buzz at the memory of her driving away from number 10 in tears, like a child whose favourite to had been taken away - happy day!!) "Minister of State for Education you have been given your allocation of resources from the Treasury" Psst terminus - doesn't matter who gave her insufficient money - she chose to balance her books at the expense of children, those coming from working class homes. "Damien Barr" Why should someone declaring they don't like milk be in any way inconvenient - how pathetic can you get Milk has always been promoted as being a health-giving asset to growing children and yet..... nice lady. Maybe we should discourage vegetables because some kids don't like them - waddya think!! Bit like describing the closing down of the mines and thowing thousands of them on the dole "for the benefit of the miners;' health, eh what? Been happy to "splutter" about Mrs T whenever the subject of Toryism comes up, ever since she announced her dedication to fascism by declaring mass-murderer Pinochet her idea of democracy MY HERO PINOCHET "Why didn't the Labour Government of Tony Blair reintroduce it?" Because they have proved themselves as antagonistic to workers interests as she was - what are you suggesting - that it was o.k. to take milk from schoolkids? None of which gets you any nearer to answering the point about the dangers of re-electing the present bunch of thugs, the fiasco of house sales, the decline in living standards that you claimed hasn't happened, the financial corruption and incompetence, Lady Porter's housing scam..... not even a murmur about the duck palaces. Must be an election on the way Jim Carroll |
|
01 May 15 - 09:54 AM (#3705713) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Jim Carroll By the way "myself and others relied on facts" You have studiously avoided every single fact puyt to you and have offered none of your own Keith is still busily trying to put the blame on he immigrants - as I said - Groundhog Day every day for some. Jim Carroll |
|
01 May 15 - 10:26 AM (#3705717) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Immigration is only a huge issue because the right wing media chose to make scapegoats of the immigrants instead of blaming their master, big business. Third time may sink in. But I doubt it... The (UN) High Commissioner noted that "while migration and refugee issues are completely valid topics for public debate, it is imperative that migration policy decisions that affect people's lives and fundamental human rights should be made on the basis of fact -- not fiction, exaggeration or blatant xenophobia. History has shown us time and again the dangers of demonizing foreigners and minorities, and it is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used in a variety of countries, simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers." |
|
01 May 15 - 10:29 AM (#3705718) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, Keith is still busily trying to put the blame on he immigrants Please show me a post where I have done that Jim. Musket, BBC. What the Social Chapter is Not Often attempts are made to link the minimum wage and the working time directive with the Social Chapter. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with any EU legislation. The working time directive was adopted under the health and safety clause of the Single European Act, not under the Social Chapter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/06/0616/chapter.shtml |
|
01 May 15 - 10:33 AM (#3705719) Subject: RE: BS: election uk From: Steve Shaw Cor, watch those old Beeb links, Keith. The 14-year-old one that caught me out was four years younger than yours. :-) |
|
01 May 15 - 10:46 AM (#3705722) Subject: BS: Election UK From: Keith A of Hertford UK has an election in six days. It is the least predictable outcome for a generation and a really big issue for us. Please may we be allowed to talk about it. |