Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
Which still means that three-quarters isn't.
Over 60% of Crossrail’s funding will come from Londoners and London businesses.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
Which still means that three-quarters isn't.
Over 60% of Crossrail’s funding will come from Londoners and London businesses.
Personally I wish some of the 'exploring' could change to 'commit', but Osborne in particular has made it a hobby horse of his and that's no bad thing.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
...
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties disproportionately receive appointments to the Lords. That is undermining of public trust in the system. Generally in other walks of public and corporate life, in situations where there is a 'quid' and a 'quo' there are systems in place to guarantee it was not a quid pro quo, and no such checks exist in this system.
We really should bring in some sort of system to prevent any single person contributing a disproportionate share of a party's finances, and also to bring some sort of independent committee to scrutinise party choices on new Lords. And, of course, make sure there is a firm formula for distributing them between parties. Where the three historic establishment parties get all of them, and the Greens and UKIP get none, it brings the system into disrepute. I certainly don't have any faith that the balance of the Lords is reflective of any sort of fair system.
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties (much fairer on small parties), not donating limits. If they can't spend the cash it is pointless for rich individuals or associations to give humongous wads of cash to arse licking politicians and the parties they belong to.
If the maximum a party can spend is say 5 (or 2, or 4) million pa and say 10 (or 6 or 8) million pa in an election year all the issues of dodgy donors are diminished.
If the money can't be spent there is no point in raising. It stops 'money buying an election', the richest winning.
Sure, there would be difficulties, but limiting the spending of political parties is better in every way to other forms of funding parties - big donors wanting a pound of flesh, government funding, etc.
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
Which still means that three-quarters isn't.
Over 60% of Crossrail’s funding will come from Londoners and London businesses.
Personally I wish some of the 'exploring' could change to 'commit', but Osborne in particular has made it a hobby horse of his and that's no bad thing.
Agree. It's also telling that Osborne's first or second (I think) tweet after winning the election was about the NP. He believes in it; the question is whether he can deliver, and the way the government is reaching out to northern councils is promising.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
Yes of course I extend it to JK Rowling. She donated that chunky sum of her own money to Labour because she thought that to do so would help ordinary and especially less-privileged people. From a moral point of view, that is wholly admirable, even though I happen to disagree with her analysis as to the best means to achieve her admirable intentions
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties disproportionately receive appointments to the Lords. That is undermining of public trust in the system. Generally in other walks of public and corporate life, in situations where there is a 'quid' and a 'quo' there are systems in place to guarantee it was not a quid pro quo, and no such checks exist in this system.
We really should bring in some sort of system to prevent any single person contributing a disproportionate share of a party's finances, and also to bring some sort of independent committee to scrutinise party choices on new Lords. And, of course, make sure there is a firm formula for distributing them between parties. Where the three historic establishment parties get all of them, and the Greens and UKIP get none, it brings the system into disrepute. I certainly don't have any faith that the balance of the Lords is reflective of any sort of fair system.
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties (much fairer on small parties), not donating limits. If they can't spend the cash it is pointless for rich individuals or associations to give humongous wads of cash to arse licking politicians and the parties they belong to.
If the maximum a party can spend is say 5 (or 2, or 4) million pa and say 10 (or 6 or 8) million pa in an election year all the issues of dodgy donors are diminished.
If the money can't be spent there is no point in raising. It stops 'money buying an election', the richest winning.
Sure, there would be difficulties, but limiting the spending of political parties is better in every way to other forms of funding parties - big donors wanting a pound of flesh, government funding, etc.
I don't think stopping parties getting their message out if the money is coming from lots of people. Spending limits could even make the problem worse if it ends up that one rich guys then accounts for 70% of the spending money.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
...
.
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties (much fairer on small parties), not donating limits. If they can't spend the cash it is pointless for rich individuals or associations to give humongous wads of cash to arse licking politicians and the parties they belong to.
If the maximum a party can spend is say 5 (or 2, or 4) million pa and say 10 (or 6 or 8) million pa in an election year all the issues of dodgy donors are diminished.
If the money can't be spent there is no point in raising. It stops 'money buying an election', the richest winning.
Sure, there would be difficulties, but limiting the spending of political parties is better in every way to other forms of funding parties - big donors wanting a pound of flesh, government funding, etc.
Frothless greetings. 1 And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... 2 And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. 3 Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
1 By having rules regulations and sanctions. I doubt it is an impossible task, most things aren't. 2 Same question as 1 3 They may well be better. There is no reason why a big donation can't be made, if the party needs the money, but they may have developed a more inclusive grass roots funded party and be in a much better place in many local constituencies and nationally.
Are you happy with funding as it is now? If not, how would you change it?
A little while ago there was a robbery of an off-licence in London by two Somalis and an Afghan. After the robbery, one of the robbers turned around and shot at both the wife and the husband that ran the store, luckily missing them both. The same people then went up to Bradford to rob a travel agents, and they killed a police officer responding to the call. They managed to catch the Afghan and one of the Somalis, but they couldn't find the second Somali, who was an asylum seeker the government had been unable to deport because he wasn't safe to go back to Somalia.
Interpol later found him a few weeks later. Guess where he was hiding out? Somalia.
We seem to have a competent rugby squad without that extra needed to be World Cup winners. I see us getting to the semi-finals and losing honourably. OK against the lesser sides (although Fiji will be a test) but coming up short against the best. In 2003, We had some bankers in key positions.
Burgess is a case in point. A good tackler but lacks that extra bit of pace for centre. Another couple of years and he'll make a flanker. That's also the opinion of many in rugby league.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
Yes of course I extend it to JK Rowling. She donated that chunky sum of her own money to Labour because she thought that to do so would help ordinary and especially less-privileged people. From a moral point of view, that is wholly admirable, even though I happen to disagree with her analysis as to the best means to achieve her admirable intentions
We really should bring in some sort of system to prevent any single person contributing a disproportionate share of a party's finances, and also to bring some sort of independent committee to scrutinise party choices on new Lords. And, of course, make sure there is a firm formula for distributing them between parties. Where the three historic establishment parties get all of them, and the Greens and UKIP get none, it brings the system into disrepute. I certainly don't have any faith that the balance of the Lords is reflective of any sort of fair system.
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties (much fairer on small parties), not donating limits. If they can't spend the cash it is pointless for rich individuals or associations to give humongous wads of cash to arse licking politicians and the parties they belong to.
If the maximum a party can spend is say 5 (or 2, or 4) million pa and say 10 (or 6 or 8) million pa in an election year all the issues of dodgy donors are diminished.
If the money can't be spent there is no point in raising. It stops 'money buying an election', the richest winning.
Sure, there would be difficulties, but limiting the spending of political parties is better in every way to other forms of funding parties - big donors wanting a pound of flesh, government funding, etc.
I don't think stopping parties getting their message out if the money is coming from lots of people. Spending limits could even make the problem worse if it ends up that one rich guys then accounts for 70% of the spending money.
So there is an incentive for parties to engage more and spread the funding so they don't appear to be dependent of a Union/Person/Company/Pressure Group
In terms of Corbyn building the parties support among the young, I'd envisage that he will be encouraging all student Labour clubs to hit freshers week hard to keep the momentum going. The unions will no doubt continue to encourage their members to become affiliates.
Happily 600,000 Labour members, so perhaps half or 300,000 Jezbollah supporters, means they only comprise less than one percent of the electorate. How many "Mr & Mrs Floating voters-in-a-marginal seat" is he going to appeal to, how many of those that didn't vote last time are going to go and vote just to "stop that socialist idiot" ? It will just be more piling up votes in Labour safe seats and losing even more marginals.
England's squad selection for the World Cup is dangerously close to incoherent.
I agree. As a rugby league fan I am sorry to see Burgess wasting his talent playing RU. (but good luck to him he cannot be blamed for accepting the money). He is a great talent and has physical presence a plenty and will do some sort of a job, but it hardly does RU any favours by parading a prop forward who plays flanker for his club at centre. Nor does it pay make sense to take 3 scrum halves and only two stand offs but 4 centres and /or 4 wings.
The far-left likes nothing more than a betrayal. If Corbyn is seen to be doing "deals" or "compromising" with any Red Tories (ie, anyone who is not on the far left) then the fury will be joyous in its rapidity, depth and tone.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
...
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties ......
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties ........ .
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
How? 1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE. 2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year. 3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping. 4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
A Labour friend of mine was enthusiastic about Jezza three weeks back. "Just what Labour need," he said....[snip]....Perhaps only a straw in the wind but it may not be all over yet.
I expect quite a few people will be having second thoughts, but it's probably too late. The thing has gone on so long that Corbyn's honeymoon may be over before the consummation.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
The historic devolution that we have agreed with Greater Manchester in return for a directly elected Mayor is available to other cities that want to go down a similar path. I can also tell the House that we are now working towards deals with the Sheffield and Liverpool city regions and with Leeds, West Yorkshire and partner authorities on far-reaching devolution of power in return for the creation of directly elected Mayors.
@Richard_Nabavi - It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged amongst Labour figures, at least the senior ones, that Corbyn will be such a disaster that he will be defenestrated, or resign of his own accord, within a couple of years. Perhaps it's not so much a belief as a hope.
It is not even hope, it is wishful thinking at best and delusion at worst. – It attempts to set the narrative on a more palatable course, rather than face up to the reality of a Corbyn lead party at GE2020 and seeing what remains of their Labour party.
True. Delusional and ignores the reality where probably 2/3 of the members are hard left and 2/3 of the donations come from unions controlled/led by the hard left. Corbyn is just the first, once he gets in position. Kinnock's Labour party of the "red rose" was facilitated by more moderate large unions.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
What makes you think it doesn't reach those cities? Perhaps you should read the document.
TPE is in dire need of some love. However *if* HS3 is going to go ahead, then it makes sense to ensure the projects are complementary. But work is still ongoing for electrification, for instance the rather stupendously technical reboring of Farnsworth Tunnel (and yes, I do love this sort of thing):
Remember: the Conservatives have a track record of this sort of thing: look how Hesseltine drove forwards the Docklands redevelopment and made it a massively important part of London. Osborne could do the same for the north.
Labour's achievements whilst in power seem rather lacklustre in comparison, do they not?
Labour can't outdo the SNP on the anti austerity platform...
On a somewhat purer narrative than I would embrace myself. the anti-austerity attacks are riddled with contradictions.
1 - The "austerity" government hasn't really practiced austerity. They backed off after quite a short period, in favour of longer term tightening. Government expediture at UK level has not been cut. Taxes are still at historic highs. 2 - Denouncing the austerity-lite practice as austerity undermines the critic. The so-called austerity government have delivered in economic terms. Jobs up, unemployment down, inflation very low, growth consistent, real wages growing. 3 - The only "anti-austerity" party - the SNP - have in fact been pursuing exactly the same type of policies. Local Government expenditure in Scotland has now been basically frozen in cash terms for years, and education, policing, health service are worse than in England. No wonder they keep howling at moons and delaying the next referendum.
Arguments for anti-austerity-nomics are reduced to "you don't understand" and "but it won't be like Venezuela".
For the vast majority of people, what's not to like?
Much of the other stuff that is called for have already been delivered - for example withering bank reform, challenger banks, investment / retail abnk separation (imo that one is a bad idea).
Mr Osborne just spanked the landlords heavily as has been discussed. If he has any sense he will implement reforms to make the Planning Systems and Rental Regulation work effectively without destroying the sector completely.
Politically they should now focus on "steady as she goes" on the persistent problems - housing, availablility of finance, productivity, institutionalising diversity in education, creating a nation of small and large businesses so that small-government values and free market practises are entrenched.
I don't see that the Corbyn left have anywhere to go, particularly that they have embraced Murphy-nomics without out looking the Murphy gifthorse in the mouth.
There is no basis for setting out a more attractive offer as any basic benefits for everyone they might deliver by such an offer have already been substantially delivered or will be delivered, and the Tories have the time to do it.
Literally up a creek without a paddle, with nothing left but publicity stunts and shouting.
The only things left are Tory banana skins - EU referendum, immigration etc, and earthquakes - global recession, war, plagues of frogs and locusts etc.
And that is either controlled by the Tories or for the Tories to build in resilience.
The next elections are for the Tories to lose, and perhaps for them to create the circumstances where Labour is replaced by whatever-comes-next.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Labour's achievements whilst in power seem rather lacklustre in comparison, do they not?
What infrastructure did Labour build in the 13 years between 1997 and 2010?
Blair and Brown build 7,870 council houses over the course of 13 years. Fatcha never built fewer than 17,710 homes in a year. Party of the working class my backside.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
...
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties ......
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties ........ .
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
How? 1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE. 2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year. 3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping. 4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
Trade Unions can influence policy and make contributions in many indirect ways. It does not have to involve direct donations. The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs. By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever. In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
Trade Unions can influence policy and make contributions in many indirect ways. It does not have to involve direct donations. The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs. By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever. In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
Exept that the Conservatives have found a way of getting round those limits. All within the law, of course. But not as the law intended.
This place really has tipped over from being a very right wing but bearable place for ribald discourse to a completely insufferable hard right circle jerk in the last few months. Shame.
I think you will find the tone of the site is being fuelled by Labour's terrible leadership contest. The rightwingers have not only won the General Election but can see the prospect of years without a real threat to them running the country. Hardly surprising they want to crow about it.
Just wait till conference. My crack about Tories and Traitors will seem like tame stuff.
It's going to be 1983 in reverse. Corbyn on the platform and Hatton and Heffer walking in and taking their seats to general applause
Kinnock was never a potential PM, but anyone who thinks he wasn't a magnificent speaker and an extremely brave politician should watch this one: 'I'm telling you - and you'll listen...you can't play politics with people's jobs and people's services!'
Yes - it's a great speech and Kinnock deserves a greate deal of credit for it.
TCPolitical betting says -- ''True. Delusional and ignores the reality where probably 2/3 of the members are hard left and 2/3 of the donations come from unions controlled/led by the hard left. Corbyn is just the first, once he gets in position. Kinnock's Labour party of the "red rose" was facilitated by more moderate large unions.''
You are spot on here. Many forget the harsh fights the moderate trade unions (well a few brave trade union leaders) had over a long period against the communists - all in the teeth of opposition from 'business friendly' Ken Livingstone and his ilk.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Labour's achievements whilst in power seem rather lacklustre in comparison, do they not?
What infrastructure did Labour build in the 13 years between 1997 and 2010?
On transport:
*) They inherited the Jubilee Line Extension *) They set up Crossrail, which the coalition inherited.
So that is one all. They also inherited the disastrous WCML upgrade project from the Conservatives, although it can easily be argued that they should have reduced the scope of that project years before they did. (*)
Aside from that, they built very few roads. They did virtually no railway electrification, whilst Thatcher's governments did a very large amount (e..g the EC, London-Norwich, etc).
(*) In fact, whilst Labour sling mud at the Conservatives over the pause in the electrification schemes, perhaps they should be congratulated for pausing the projects for a rethink when problem became clear, rather than allowing them to continue for four years, as Labour did with the WCML upgrade.
Fairly interesting piece from Charles Clarke in the Telegraph. Obviously he has his own ideologies which he will defend which may colour his conclusions which not everyone will agree with, but I appreciated he attempted to lay out if there were specific identifiable and consistent criteria for statesmanship, as it were and how all previous leaders managed against those criteria. It showed an attempt at objective analysis at least I think.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
There are two distinct groups of posters, those with forthright political views, and those who are party partisan and to all intents don't have a political view of their own in the same way as a caravan doesn't have a view on the direction of travel, it just follows along behind the leader. Mr JEO belongs to the former, the latter are not hard to identify as they amuse themselves not just in rubbishing the policies of their political opponents, but those notionally on the same side that dare to question the views put forward by their leader. The Dave is right posters seem to be rather perky at the moment, just as the EdM is right posters were before the election, although they seems rather quieter just now
There is a third group: people with forthright political views that Cameron just happens to agree with.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
You need to read the document, Sandy !
OK So Sunderland probably won't end up part of the powerhouse, but there is a nice picture of a Sheffield supertram there !
Plus the 'power house' is not just Manchester. It is planned that the links will be wider than that if the separate areas elect a mayor. I am not fussed about 'mayors' but assuming the areas can demonstrate they can co-operate then the region will develop as a coherent whole.
Plato.. I have the feeling that we are sliding slowly back into the dark ages...The closing down of human intellect...hopefully it will be a slow slide and I personally wont be affected by it..
The Northern Powerhouse doesn't just refer to Manchester. It doesn't even just refer to the other big northern cities though that's been made abundantly clear. It also applies to local towns.
In my town of Warrington (between Manchester and Liverpool) our local MP made it a massive part of his campaign. He was in one of the most marginal seats in the country (even the exit poll gave it to Labour) and still is but was reelected on an increased majority. Amongst the infrastructure being built here are two new bridges (over 40 years in the planning) and upgrades to our motorway stretches of the M6, M62 and M56. Some of the motorway upgrades were announced after the election.
We suffer from a major gridlock problem whenever there's an accident on any of those motorways (so quite often) so these infrastructure upgraded should make a major difference to us.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
JWisemann is one of the rudest posters here. He/she has been really quite insulting to me and others.
But in any case the complaint was not about rudeness but about PB becoming too right wing. Personally I value hearing from people with different political opinions to mine, like you (on some topics - we agree on some things), even if I don't agree with them.
I am astonished that Don thinks Burnham, Cooper and Kendall have "grown" during the Campaign. Burnham has been exposed as an "empty vessel" who tacks this way and that way depending on which way the "wind is blowing." Cooper has had nothing really to say except to go on and on about Sure Start and women. Kendall is simply not ready for the job. I just think the campaign has diminished them.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
There are two distinct groups of posters, those with forthright political views, and those who are party partisan and to all intents don't have a political view of their own in the same way as a caravan doesn't have a view on the direction of travel, it just follows along behind the leader. Mr JEO belongs to the former, the latter are not hard to identify as they amuse themselves not just in rubbishing the policies of their political opponents, but those notionally on the same side that dare to question the views put forward by their leader. The Dave is right posters seem to be rather perky at the moment, just as the EdM is right posters were before the election, although they seems rather quieter just now
There is a third group: people with forthright political views that Cameron just happens to agree with.
That's a transient phase, Cameron's views are too mobile and unprincipled
I'm active on a number of transgender forums. It's not uncommon for the most innocuous of threads to have "Trigger warning" in the header, even when dealing with things like misgendering or the ever-popular topic of which loo to use.
It's incredibly sad that we're increasingly dealing with even the most mildly controversial or distressing subjects by metaphorically pulling the blankets over our heads.
When the SNP does act to make reforms in Scotland, two tendencies in its policy-making are striking. The SNP’s illiberalism should not, perhaps, surprise us, nationalism in Europe all too often having sacrificed individual freedoms on the altar of national self-determination. The party’s centralising tendencies, however, are remarkable given the SNP’s vocal opposition to rule from London.
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties ......
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties ........ .
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
How? 1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE. 2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year. 3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping. 4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
Trade Unions can influence policy and make contributions in many indirect ways. It does not have to involve direct donations. The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs. By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever. In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
Trade unions should exist to represent the interests of their members within their employment.
But on contributions, their size and their donors' relative influence on the party they donate to are closely related. There is an element of bluff on both sides about ceasing the relationship - both know that neither would benefit from that move - but there remains only so much latitude the unions can give and that Labour can take. It comes back to the simple definition of power: the ability to make things happen, or to prevent them from happening. Donating millions a year gives them leverage, particularly when there are so few alternative funding streams.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Have you been to Leeds recently?
Yes - and I regularly catch the train from Leeds to Manchester, which takes an hour to get there.
It takes an hour on the train to travel 45miles(ish)? You poor fellow! Clearly the North has been ground down into third world status by a succession of Tory governments. Meanwhile down here in the Tory loving south where successive Tory governments have spared no expense in modernising the infrastructure the time taken to travel by train from Brighton to London (more or less the same distance) is just about an hour.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Have you been to Leeds recently?
Yes - and I regularly catch the train from Leeds to Manchester, which takes an hour to get there.
Well then you'll know that as a regional capital it's currently doing well. I agree that the rail links across the north need substantial upgrades though.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
There are two distinct groups of posters, those with forthright political views, and those who are party partisan and to all intents don't have a political view of their own in the same way as a caravan doesn't have a view on the direction of travel, it just follows along behind the leader. Mr JEO belongs to the former, the latter are not hard to identify as they amuse themselves not just in rubbishing the policies of their political opponents, but those notionally on the same side that dare to question the views put forward by their leader. The Dave is right posters seem to be rather perky at the moment, just as the EdM is right posters were before the election, although they seems rather quieter just now
There is a third group: people with forthright political views that Cameron just happens to agree with.
Actually, there's a fourth - people without (many) forthright political vies and who also aren't party partisan (though may lean more one way than other of course).
This place really has tipped over from being a very right wing but bearable place for ribald discourse to a completely insufferable hard right circle jerk in the last few months. Shame.
I think you will find the tone of the site is being fuelled by Labour's terrible leadership contest. The rightwingers have not only won the General Election but can see the prospect of years without a real threat to them running the country. Hardly surprising they want to crow about it.
They should enjoy it while they can , the useless lot they worship will not last 5 minutes when any decent opposition appears.
That's the whole problem MalcolmG though, isn't it? We need a decent opposition, especially given the current government is not a great government. But where and when will it emerge? The SNP are the nearest thing to an active opposition in Parliament, and that's just entrenching the already alarming divide between English and Scottish politics (that should be alarming even to pro-independence supporters - if the UK and Scotland do separate, we should all want to remain friendly to each other for very obvious reasons).
If Labour implode, how long before another party can emerge to challenge the government? Well, when the Liberals collapsed in 1916 between Lloyd George and Asquith's infighting, the Tories held power for all but three of the next 29 years, and came second in just one election in all that time (and then, only very narrowly). Very little has changed in our political system - indeed if anything the opposition vote is somewhat more fragmented. There is no reason why a similar timeframe should be considered unrealistic now.
The thought of Osborne being the de facto ruler of the country until 2040 is not a pleasant one. And it would be the fault of Labour for electing Corbyn. It is the most unbelievable unforced error.
ydoethur, Whilst he has some dodgy ideas , at least he is invoking some thinking, if any of the other candidates are elected then Labour is guaranteed to wither and die, they are all Tories in sheep's clothing. Corbyn at least will upset the apple cart and will either get the same result as the 3 stooges would realise or it will transform Labour into a worthwhile opposition. To me if I was a Labour supporter he is the only option , even if a dangerous one.
I think the GE demonstrated that the electorate doesn't care for dangerous options i.e. possible Labour/ SNP "co-operation"
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties ......
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties ........ .
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
How? 1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE. 2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year. 3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping. 4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
Trade Unions can influence policy and make contributions in many indirect ways. It does not have to involve direct donations. The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs. By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever. In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
Trade unions should exist to represent the interests of their members within their employment.
And since governments create labour law, they have a direct interest in who forms the government.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Raises the interesting question of who is going to be donating seven-figure sums to Jezbollah? As I understand it, Labour's finances have been propped up by "loans" not being called in. If those previously having a generous disposition towards Labour turn away, then the Party becomes the political wing of UNITE - no ifs, no buts.
Yes, indeed so, and of course that is crucially important in relation to the question raised by Don's article. It seems to be a truth universally acknowledged amongst Labour figures, at least the senior ones, that Corbyn will be such a disaster that he will be defenestrated, or resign of his own accord, within a couple of years. Perhaps it's not so much a belief as a hope. Let's assume that they are right: then what? The thinking, evident in Don's article and implicit in Nick's posts, is that the party will be able to rapidly get over its drunken orgy of extreme-left self indulgence, shake off the hangover instantly, find a new, more solid but still charismatic leader, and unite around him or her.
That seems awfully optimistic me; the party is tearing itself apart, there don't actually seem to be any solid but charismatic alternative leaders to hand, and - as you rightly say - donors will have been driven out. Meanwhile the MP base has been shifted (by Unite's candidate-placement) to the left, and a whole bunch of far-left supporters have been given a huge say in the party's future. Corbyn intends to weaken still further MPs say in policy. That means control of the party's direction has already shifted out of what one might loosely call 'Blairites' - i.e. anyone with a vague grip of reality - into the hands of a combination of Len McCluskey, the far-left, and the naive. It is wishful thinking to imagine that this will suddenly all come good if Corbyn is selected and then disappears again.
I'm not sure the naive will inherit the earth but I agree the other two might or Labour at least
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
There are two distinct groups of posters, those with forthright political views, and those who are party partisan and to all intents don't have a political view of their own in the same way as a caravan doesn't have a view on the direction of travel, it just follows along behind the leader. Mr JEO belongs to the former, the latter are not hard to identify as they amuse themselves not just in rubbishing the policies of their political opponents, but those notionally on the same side that dare to question the views put forward by their leader. The Dave is right posters seem to be rather perky at the moment, just as the EdM is right posters were before the election, although they seems rather quieter just now
There is a third group: people with forthright political views that Cameron just happens to agree with.
That's a transient phase, Cameron's views are too mobile and unprincipled
It's been a transient phase that's lasted 5 years or more.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Have you been to Leeds recently?
Yes - and I regularly catch the train from Leeds to Manchester, which takes an hour to get there.
Well then you'll know that as a regional capital it's currently doing well. I agree that the rail links across the north need substantial upgrades though.
I agree - Leeds city centre is thriving. But this has come about prior to any Northern Powerhouse input.
Like you, my experience of Muslims is that while a small group take the fundamentalists viewpoint most do not.
I think this is a very important point.
I reproduce here - without comment - the following tale (in 2 parts because of length):-
PART 1
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?"
"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
Most of the general public know this, all across the world, but our politicians are in denial and offer only appeasement.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
Mr. JEO, where people are considered dangerous, the safety or lack thereof in their country of origin should be disregarded.
I think that is a fair point. However The scale of the problem the entire world faces is shown on the news yesterday and today. 70 dead in a truck. Appalling. We are not in Schengen but you still have to question how viable it is when clearly large scale people tracking is being facilitated by the lack of border checks. Another incident where hundreds dead and drowned on boats that sank. The driving forces behind these migrations is unstoppable. The notion that these people want to come because of a few bits of benefits is missing the point. If Farage want to play King Canute he is welcome. Much bigger issues are at play. These issues need to be addressed and simply complaining about the (pretty apt) use of descriptive words is not in any way going to deliver a solution. Thats assuming there is one.
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
A little while ago there was a robbery of an off-licence in London by two Somalis and an Afghan. After the robbery, one of the robbers turned around and shot at both the wife and the husband that ran the store, luckily missing them both. The same people then went up to Bradford to rob a travel agents, and they killed a police officer responding to the call. They managed to catch the Afghan and one of the Somalis, but they couldn't find the second Somali, who was an asylum seeker the government had been unable to deport because he wasn't safe to go back to Somalia.
Interpol later found him a few weeks later. Guess where he was hiding out? Somalia.
I remember that story,the Somali who escaped to Somalia was dressed in disguise has a muslim woman if I remember rightly.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
There are two distinct groups of posters, those with forthright political views, and those who are party partisan and to all intents don't have a political view of their own in the same way as a caravan doesn't have a view on the direction of travel, it just follows along behind the leader. Mr JEO belongs to the former, the latter are not hard to identify as they amuse themselves not just in rubbishing the policies of their political opponents, but those notionally on the same side that dare to question the views put forward by their leader. The Dave is right posters seem to be rather perky at the moment, just as the EdM is right posters were before the election, although they seems rather quieter just now
There is a third group: people with forthright political views that Cameron just happens to agree with.
That's a transient phase, Cameron's views are too mobile and unprincipled
It's been a transient phase that's lasted 5 years or more.
So which Cameron did you agree with, the one that said he was going to cut immigration to 100k, or the one that saw it rise over 300k ? The one that is going to hold a renegotiation and recommend it to the people on its merits, or the one that cannot conceive of leaving the EU ? When he said there was going to be no more top down reorganisation of the NHS, or when he announced the top down reorganisation of the NHS ? The Cameron that said he wouldn't cut child tax credit, or the one that cut child tax credit ? The Cameron that announced the 3 days for volunteers, or the Cameron that quietly dropped it? The Cameron that would set a cap on residential social care by April 2016, or the Cameron that kicked it back past 2020 ? The Cameron that is going to make government increasingly transparent, or the Cameron that is trying to restrict the use of the FoI ?
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
Just as long as it also applies to the National Trust - the country's second-biggest landowner.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
This place really has tipped over from being a very right wing but bearable place for ribald discourse to a completely insufferable hard right circle jerk in the last few months. Shame.
I think you will find the tone of the site is being fuelled by Labour's terrible leadership contest. The rightwingers have not only won the General Election but can see the prospect of years without a real threat to them running the country. Hardly surprising they want to crow about it.
They should enjoy it while they can , the useless lot they worship will not last 5 minutes when any decent opposition appears.
If Labour implode, how long before another party can emerge to challenge the government? Well, when the Liberals collapsed in 1916 between Lloyd George and Asquith's infighting, the Tories held power for all but three of the next 29 years, and came second in just one election in all that time (and then, only very narrowly). Very little has changed in our political system - indeed if anything the opposition vote is somewhat more fragmented. There is no reason why a similar timeframe should be considered unrealistic now.
The thought of Osborne being the de facto ruler of the country until 2040 is not a pleasant one. And it would be the fault of Labour for electing Corbyn. It is the most unbelievable unforced error.
ydoethur, Whilst he has some dodgy ideas , at least he is invoking some thinking, if any of the other candidates are elected then Labour is guaranteed to wither and die, they are all Tories in sheep's clothing. Corbyn at least will upset the apple cart and will either get the same result as the 3 stooges would realise or it will transform Labour into a worthwhile opposition. To me if I was a Labour supporter he is the only option , even if a dangerous one.
I think the GE demonstrated that the electorate doesn't care for dangerous options i.e. possible Labour/ SNP "co-operation"
You miss the point , I merely said that he at least would open debate on where Labour goes next , the others will just be Tory Lites and guarantee demise of the party. I did not say he would lead them to victory , but would be the start of the changes they need to ever get back.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
But what if Corbyn neither crashes and burns, nor flourishes? What if, instead, he bumbles along at level-pegging in the polls or even a few points ahead?
And who is the Michael Howard to unite around? Someone, like him, of the last generation - Johnson? Harman? - or someone of the next?
Shouldn't you have started this with "once upon a time"?
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Even if these cases did not have any malignant motivations on either side, the appearance of corruption is clearly dangerous when long-standing donors to political parties ......
It isn't raising money and who the money is from that is the problem, it is the amount parties spend and want to spend.
There should be spending limits on parties ........ .
Frothless greetings. And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please? Yes? I'm waiting... And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party. Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
How? 1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE. 2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year. 3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping. 4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
Trade Unions can influence policy and make contributions in many indirect ways. It does not have to involve direct donations. The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs. By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever. In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
Trade unions should exist to represent the interests of their members within their employment.
And since governments create labour law, they have a direct interest in who forms the government.
True, and they've a legitimate role in lobbying there (as have, for example, the CBI, IoD and the like on the other side). But what shouldn't happen is the line be blurred between the respective lobbyists and the government and/or members of parliament. When Labour is so dependent on just one or two unions, that places tremendous power in the hands of those general secretaries and senior officers.
Richard N's loyalty to his friend is fine, as long as he extends the same view to JK Rowling when she gives Labour £1 million. I agree with him that both are selfless acts.
Yes of course I extend it to JK Rowling. She donated that chunky sum of her own money to Labour because she thought that to do so would help ordinary and especially less-privileged people. From a moral point of view, that is wholly admirable, even though I happen to disagree with her analysis as to the best means to achieve her admirable intentions
Raises the interesting question of who is going to be donating seven-figure sums to Jezbollah? As I understand it, Labour's finances have been propped up by "loans" not being called in. If those previously having a generous disposition towards Labour turn away, then the Party becomes the political wing of UNITE - no ifs, no buts.
No different from the Tories being a paid tool of large business owners, apart from their being more union members than rich billionaires
Now we know the true reason why the GE went the way it did - there are more large business owners in the country than anyone ever dreamed.
Labour Londoners are rightly proud of the legacy of the Livingstone-led GLC in fighting racism and homophobia.
You are really proud of minority-buying identity politics and inviting homophobia hate preachers to spread their filth?
It's funny how Tories believe discredited defamatory defectors from the KGB when it suits them.
It's also pretty evident that the PB comment mainstream may complain about how left-wingers engage in echo chamber groupthink, but they don't appreciate any headers that disagree with their worldview in any significant way.
Northern Powerhouse = Manchester Powerhouse. It doesn't reach Liverpool or Leeds, never mind Newcastle or Sunderland.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Labour's achievements whilst in power seem rather lacklustre in comparison, do they not?
What infrastructure did Labour build in the 13 years between 1997 and 2010?
On transport:
*) They inherited the Jubilee Line Extension *) They set up Crossrail, which the coalition inherited.
So that is one all. They also inherited the disastrous WCML upgrade project from the Conservatives, although it can easily be argued that they should have reduced the scope of that project years before they did. (*)
Aside from that, they built very few roads. They did virtually no railway electrification, whilst Thatcher's governments did a very large amount (e..g the EC, London-Norwich, etc).
(*) In fact, whilst Labour sling mud at the Conservatives over the pause in the electrification schemes, perhaps they should be congratulated for pausing the projects for a rethink when problem became clear, rather than allowing them to continue for four years, as Labour did with the WCML upgrade.
On rail investment, good things have been happening since the coalition in 2010.
Our local station - High Speed direct services to London about 4 times a day - had a pedestrian level crossing in 1973 when built, and a pedestrian bridge.
At some point that was removed for "Health and Safety". Accident perhaps.
Since at least 1994 (couldn't trace it further) to get from Platform 2 to Platform 1 to leave the station people in wheelchairs have to get on the train, travel 20 miles to Nottingham, use the lifts there, get on the train back, and travel back 20 miles. That has been the official advice.
There is now going to be a ramped bridge built.
Some time before 2019.
I think our local people with disabilities have the Lib Dems to thank. But rail planning is as sclerotic as normal Planning.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
But what if Corbyn neither crashes and burns, nor flourishes? What if, instead, he bumbles along at level-pegging in the polls or even a few points ahead?
And who is the Michael Howard to unite around? Someone, like him, of the last generation - Johnson? Harman? - or someone of the next?
Shouldn't you have started this with "once upon a time"?
Foot, Hague and IDS all managed poll leads. No reason why Corbyn can't emulate them at some point.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
Which still means that three-quarters isn't.
Given the amount London and the South-East subsidises the rest of the country, everyone benefits from London growth not being choked off. Working in the capital, but living outside, I have a love-hate relationship with the place. But the current infrastructure expansion isn't keeping up with current population growth, as it is, so it would be a big mistake to do even less spending. Other parts of the country may complain, but they are not expanding as quickly as London is so existing networks can better cope.
Fraternal and frothfree greetings. This has always been the case with London. That history does not help us now of course, but it shows its a difficult problem. Lets not forget the endless parade of New Towns built since the war. I do not say they have been success in social or planning terms but despite them London continues its pull. We now have even more attempts to develop northern infrastructure. Plus HS2. Perhaps given the £billions needed on it, the HoP should be simply tarted up and turned into a museum. Maybe the money would be better spent on a totally new capital city somewhere. But where?
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
Do you want any fish with those chips?
You are not fond of reality are you.
What's happened? You've thrown an insult and you haven't mentioned 'turnip'?
Why doesn't the Corbynator go for a land value tax? Would probably be doomed by opponents' misrepresentations (much like the alternative vote) but it has to be more convincing than the people's printy printy. Strike the 1% in a way which might actually be beneficial in the long run?
Would this land value tax also apply to agricultural land? I only ask because I wonder what the plan would be to maintain the uplands in areas like the Lake District and Yorkshire moors once all the farmers have been driven out of business.
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
That is yet to be seen, since there is a judicial review open on it under exactly those terms at the moment.
A legal fight in Scotland’s highest civil court starts today to block an SNP plan to assign every child a state guardian over claims it rides roughshod over parents’ rights to raise their children how they see fit.
Judge Lord Pentland is to examine the lawfulness of the measure, contained in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, which assigns a “named” person such as a teacher or health visitor to anyone aged under 18.
In anycase even Polis Scotland seem to have their doubts
The force has said that "specific examples can be provided", suggesting that an unknown number of children have been subjected to physical or sexual abuse or neglect as a direct result of the Named Person legislation.
The derisive response by some here misses the point about Don's piece, which is essentially that non-Corbyn Labour people are thinking about how best to come to terms with his potential success. The early stuff about The Resistance etc. is being replaced by sober calculation. That's reflected among the candidates too, who by all accounts get along personally quite well after all the hours on the campaign trail together - Burnham is willing to be in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and Cooper hasn't ruled it out.
Most Labour people agree on the right response to two opposite outcomes: if Labour flourishes under Corbyn, almost nobody is going to try to get rid of him, and if Labour crashes and burns then there's a consensus deep into the left (including, I think, Corbyn himself) that we'll need to move on. There will be problems anyway with yesterday's old guard (Alan Milburn etc.), which I think we'll shrug off, but the main difficulty will be if we do middling well - winning this, losing that, roughly level in the polls, etc. An interesting question which Corbyn has raised himself is whether he can emulate the SNP's success in getting all the young enthusiasts to actually buckle down and register, knock on doors etc.
Incidentally JWiseman is right that some posters are going further than usual over the borders of civility. JEO, who is to the right of most here, is personally polite without compromising his views, and it makes him a lot more readable than some of the frothers.
But what if Corbyn neither crashes and burns, nor flourishes? What if, instead, he bumbles along at level-pegging in the polls or even a few points ahead?
And who is the Michael Howard to unite around? Someone, like him, of the last generation - Johnson? Harman? - or someone of the next?
Shouldn't you have started this with "once upon a time"?
Foot, Hague and IDS all managed poll leads. No reason why Corbyn can't emulate them at some point.
Diversity and tolerance in London are thanks to Red Ken?
Riiiiiight
And forgive me if I don't pop the champagne corks as a non-Londoner about Crossrail. Not everyone thinks that truly vast and absurd amounts of public money being spent on Victorian technology to the benefit only of London and the SE is a great idea.
To be fair, a quarter (I think) of the Crossrail cost - in the order of £4 billion - is coming from an extra business rates tax on London businesses. somewhat controversially for London businesses located some distance away from the new line ...
And a great wedge from Scotland, we look forward to all those benefits and value for money. Meanwhile in Scotland we have to pay 100% of any upgrades, lovely all that pooling and lack of sharing.
ScotRail, Scotland's main operator, received the largest subsidy of all train companies at £261 million
A Labour friend of mine was enthusiastic about Jezza three weeks back. "Just what Labour need," he said....[snip]....Perhaps only a straw in the wind but it may not be all over yet.
I expect quite a few people will be having second thoughts, but it's probably too late. The thing has gone on so long that Corbyn's honeymoon may be over before the consummation.
I think the consummation is a fait accompli - he's already fxxked Labour
The SNP's plan to have a state guardian for every single Scottish child is, I think, the most extraordinary and frightening policy I have ever seen from a party of government. It is unbelievable.
Is it even compatible with the ECHR?
of course it is , scaremongering by SO who obviously is just reading the Daily Hail headlines
Hello Malcolm,
It was a genuine question. The right to family life article might well be used to argue that, absent any threat to the child, there is no reason to have a state guardian interfering with how tthe parents bring up the child. Nor, on the face of it, does it seem necessary given that the authorities already have the power - subject to judicial scrutiny - to take action where a child is at risk of harm. I am not aware of the details but wouldn't any legislation need to be declared compatible with the provisions of the HRA in any case?
Glorious Bedford How lucky its canny inhabitants are. ''Bedford, Bedfordshire The phrase “a well-kept secret” is overused but it can be applied to Bedford. “Bedford is 20 minutes farther along the line from St Albans but it is 20 to 30 per cent cheaper,” says Nik Kershaw, sales consultant at Taylors’ Bedford office. “It has a good mix of housing, it’s historic, has a beautiful embankment and some very pretty areas. It is also incredibly commutable.” The fast service to St Pancras takes 40 minutes and there are improvements being made to the Bedford to Brighton line, which goes via London and Gatwick airport, as part of the Thameslink programme. The town is becoming more popular with people commuting to Milton Keynes and Cambridge, now that a bypass offers better access to these areas. '' (Telegraph Property - ''The next top commuter towns'')
Wow, where have you been? (Seriously, where? Can I move there? What’s the rent like?)
Jeremy Corbyn is the 66-year-old Left-wing MP for Islington North. He’s been in parliament since 1983 and involved in politics for far longer than that. Name a Left-wing protest in the last 50 years, he’s probably been on in. He’s rebelled more times against the Labour whip in parliament than any other MP. He voted with Labour less than the Conservative party. He is the maverick’s maverick.
The closest analogy for how unexpected all this: imagine Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell, running for the Conservative leadership – and winning.
Comments
A Labour friend of mine was enthusiastic about Jezza three weeks back. "Just what Labour need," he said.
Last week, he conceded that Jezza would never win a GE, so Burnham would be his number one choice (the local lad).
Yesterday he voted ... 1 Liz, 2 Yvette.
"Why the change?"
"Andy's been so disappointing. And I was looking over Blair's record, it wasn't so bad apart from Iraq."
Perhaps only a straw in the wind but it may not be all over yet.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427339/the-northern-powerhouse-tagged.pdf
Personally I wish some of the 'exploring' could change to 'commit', but Osborne in particular has made it a hobby horse of his and that's no bad thing.
The England side's good, but I don't think we'll make the final.
And how do you stop politically motivated left wing trade unions getting round all that please?
Yes?
I'm waiting...
And come on - how do you stop any party taking advantage of other organisations to bypass such rules? But trade unions set up the Labour Party - they are in effect the labour party.
Where would that well known small one man band party UKIP be without a couple of big big big individual donors?
2 Same question as 1
3 They may well be better. There is no reason why a big donation can't be made, if the party needs the money, but they may have developed a more inclusive grass roots funded party and be in a much better place in many local constituencies and nationally.
Are you happy with funding as it is now?
If not, how would you change it?
A little while ago there was a robbery of an off-licence in London by two Somalis and an Afghan. After the robbery, one of the robbers turned around and shot at both the wife and the husband that ran the store, luckily missing them both. The same people then went up to Bradford to rob a travel agents, and they killed a police officer responding to the call. They managed to catch the Afghan and one of the Somalis, but they couldn't find the second Somali, who was an asylum seeker the government had been unable to deport because he wasn't safe to go back to Somalia.
Interpol later found him a few weeks later. Guess where he was hiding out? Somalia.
We seem to have a competent rugby squad without that extra needed to be World Cup winners. I see us getting to the semi-finals and losing honourably. OK against the lesser sides (although Fiji will be a test) but coming up short against the best. In 2003, We had some bankers in key positions.
Burgess is a case in point. A good tackler but lacks that extra bit of pace for centre. Another couple of years and he'll make a flanker. That's also the opinion of many in rugby league.
Trans-pennine electrification: This year, next year, sometime, never?
Mr. JEO, where people are considered dangerous, the safety or lack thereof in their country of origin should be disregarded.
OK So Sunderland probably won't end up part of the powerhouse, but there is a nice picture of a Sheffield supertram there !
He is a great talent and has physical presence a plenty and will do some sort of a job, but it hardly does RU any favours by parading a prop forward who plays flanker for his club at centre. Nor does it pay make sense to take 3 scrum halves and only two stand offs but 4 centres and /or 4 wings.
The omission of Cipriani already has the press sharpening their knives just in case.
Manna from heaven for Gatland and us. Don;t be surprised if Warren plays games with that omission before we play England.
1. Annual choice by each union member online of where their political contribution to go. List all political parties with >1% at last GE.
2. Limit any contribution by a Union on top of this to £50,000 in total each year.
3. Limit any contribution by a person to £50,000 in total each year whether directly or indirectly via any body or grouping.
4. Limit any contribution by a body, group or company to £50,000 in total each year.
If only the Conservatives did this, they would also tackle the sleaze around donations and honours.
TPE is in dire need of some love. However *if* HS3 is going to go ahead, then it makes sense to ensure the projects are complementary. But work is still ongoing for electrification, for instance the rather stupendously technical reboring of Farnsworth Tunnel (and yes, I do love this sort of thing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w591AQh7DT8
Remember: the Conservatives have a track record of this sort of thing: look how Hesseltine drove forwards the Docklands redevelopment and made it a massively important part of London. Osborne could do the same for the north.
Labour's achievements whilst in power seem rather lacklustre in comparison, do they not?
1 - The "austerity" government hasn't really practiced austerity. They backed off after quite a short period, in favour of longer term tightening. Government expediture at UK level has not been cut. Taxes are still at historic highs.
2 - Denouncing the austerity-lite practice as austerity undermines the critic. The so-called austerity government have delivered in economic terms. Jobs up, unemployment down, inflation very low, growth consistent, real wages growing.
3 - The only "anti-austerity" party - the SNP - have in fact been pursuing exactly the same type of policies. Local Government expenditure in Scotland has now been basically frozen in cash terms for years, and education, policing, health service are worse than in England. No wonder they keep howling at moons and delaying the next referendum.
Arguments for anti-austerity-nomics are reduced to "you don't understand" and "but it won't be like Venezuela".
For the vast majority of people, what's not to like?
Much of the other stuff that is called for have already been delivered - for example withering bank reform, challenger banks, investment / retail abnk separation (imo that one is a bad idea).
Mr Osborne just spanked the landlords heavily as has been discussed. If he has any sense he will implement reforms to make the Planning Systems and Rental Regulation work effectively without destroying the sector completely.
Politically they should now focus on "steady as she goes" on the persistent problems - housing, availablility of finance, productivity, institutionalising diversity in education, creating a nation of small and large businesses so that small-government values and free market practises are entrenched.
I don't see that the Corbyn left have anywhere to go, particularly that they have embraced Murphy-nomics without out looking the Murphy gifthorse in the mouth.
There is no basis for setting out a more attractive offer as any basic benefits for everyone they might deliver by such an offer have already been substantially delivered or will be delivered, and the Tories have the time to do it.
Literally up a creek without a paddle, with nothing left but publicity stunts and shouting.
The only things left are Tory banana skins - EU referendum, immigration etc, and earthquakes - global recession, war, plagues of frogs and locusts etc.
And that is either controlled by the Tories or for the Tories to build in resilience.
The next elections are for the Tories to lose, and perhaps for them to create the circumstances where Labour is replaced by whatever-comes-next.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270
The whole purpose of trade unions is to be in a position to influence the Labour party. And the Co-Op ? They directly sponsor MPs.
By the same token - other parties could subvert contribution rules in similar ways. Think tanks and whatever.
In any event there are already limits on election expenditure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html
The whole tale is a sequence of Britain being a soft touch.
You are spot on here. Many forget the harsh fights the moderate trade unions (well a few brave trade union leaders) had over a long period against the communists - all in the teeth of opposition from 'business friendly' Ken Livingstone and his ilk.
*) They inherited the Jubilee Line Extension
*) They set up Crossrail, which the coalition inherited.
So that is one all. They also inherited the disastrous WCML upgrade project from the Conservatives, although it can easily be argued that they should have reduced the scope of that project years before they did. (*)
Aside from that, they built very few roads. They did virtually no railway electrification, whilst Thatcher's governments did a very large amount (e..g the EC, London-Norwich, etc).
(*) In fact, whilst Labour sling mud at the Conservatives over the pause in the electrification schemes, perhaps they should be congratulated for pausing the projects for a rethink when problem became clear, rather than allowing them to continue for four years, as Labour did with the WCML upgrade.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11830188/Nobody-in-Labour-has-the-makings-of-a-leader.html
That Kinnock speech wouldn't happen now. If it did, Jezza would be in the audience booing.
I am not fussed about 'mayors' but assuming the areas can demonstrate they can co-operate then the region will develop as a coherent whole.
In my town of Warrington (between Manchester and Liverpool) our local MP made it a massive part of his campaign. He was in one of the most marginal seats in the country (even the exit poll gave it to Labour) and still is but was reelected on an increased majority. Amongst the infrastructure being built here are two new bridges (over 40 years in the planning) and upgrades to our motorway stretches of the M6, M62 and M56. Some of the motorway upgrades were announced after the election.
We suffer from a major gridlock problem whenever there's an accident on any of those motorways (so quite often) so these infrastructure upgraded should make a major difference to us.
But in any case the complaint was not about rudeness but about PB becoming too right wing. Personally I value hearing from people with different political opinions to mine, like you (on some topics - we agree on some things), even if I don't agree with them.
(PS You're still wrong about Corbyn, though!!)
Brad Barritt (Saracens), Sam Burgess (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Henry Slade (Exeter)
I mean, what the heck has the last 3 years of Lancaster's reign been about to come up with that?
It's incredibly sad that we're increasingly dealing with even the most mildly controversial or distressing subjects by metaphorically pulling the blankets over our heads.
But on contributions, their size and their donors' relative influence on the party they donate to are closely related. There is an element of bluff on both sides about ceasing the relationship - both know that neither would benefit from that move - but there remains only so much latitude the unions can give and that Labour can take. It comes back to the simple definition of power: the ability to make things happen, or to prevent them from happening. Donating millions a year gives them leverage, particularly when there are so few alternative funding streams.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-34082958
as the saying goes, - one born every minute.
(Sorry to start a sentence with 'but'!)
I reproduce here - without comment - the following tale (in 2 parts because of length):-
PART 1
“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?"
(TO BE CONTINUED)
"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
Most of the general public know this, all across the world, but our politicians are in denial and offer only appeasement.
Like the silent Muslims, we remain silent and acquiescent, while our freedoms gradually disappear."
However
The scale of the problem the entire world faces is shown on the news yesterday and today.
70 dead in a truck. Appalling.
We are not in Schengen but you still have to question how viable it is when clearly large scale people tracking is being facilitated by the lack of border checks.
Another incident where hundreds dead and drowned on boats that sank. The driving forces behind these migrations is unstoppable. The notion that these people want to come because of a few bits of benefits is missing the point.
If Farage want to play King Canute he is welcome. Much bigger issues are at play. These issues need to be addressed and simply complaining about the (pretty apt) use of descriptive words is not in any way going to deliver a solution. Thats assuming there is one.
It's also pretty evident that the PB comment mainstream may complain about how left-wingers engage in echo chamber groupthink, but they don't appreciate any headers that disagree with their worldview in any significant way.
Our local station - High Speed direct services to London about 4 times a day - had a pedestrian level crossing in 1973 when built, and a pedestrian bridge.
At some point that was removed for "Health and Safety". Accident perhaps.
Since at least 1994 (couldn't trace it further) to get from Platform 2 to Platform 1 to leave the station people in wheelchairs have to get on the train, travel 20 miles to Nottingham, use the lifts there, get on the train back, and travel back 20 miles. That has been the official advice.
There is now going to be a ramped bridge built.
Some time before 2019.
I think our local people with disabilities have the Lib Dems to thank. But rail planning is as sclerotic as normal Planning.
http://www.ageukmobility.co.uk/mobility-news/disabled-ramp-be-installed-alfreton-station
This has always been the case with London. That history does not help us now of course, but it shows its a difficult problem.
Lets not forget the endless parade of New Towns built since the war. I do not say they have been success in social or planning terms but despite them London continues its pull. We now have even more attempts to develop northern infrastructure. Plus HS2.
Perhaps given the £billions needed on it, the HoP should be simply tarted up and turned into a museum. Maybe the money would be better spent on a totally new capital city somewhere. But where?
You're slipping.
In anycase even Polis Scotland seem to have their doubts http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/592177/Police-warnings-state-guardians Anyone under 18.
It was a genuine question. The right to family life article might well be used to argue that, absent any threat to the child, there is no reason to have a state guardian interfering with how tthe parents bring up the child. Nor, on the face of it, does it seem necessary given that the authorities already have the power - subject to judicial scrutiny - to take action where a child is at risk of harm. I am not aware of the details but wouldn't any legislation need to be declared compatible with the provisions of the HRA in any case?
(PS I hope you are still enjoying your racing.)
Some of Brind's other articles compete for the accolade.
How lucky its canny inhabitants are.
''Bedford, Bedfordshire
The phrase “a well-kept secret” is overused but it can be applied to Bedford. “Bedford is 20 minutes farther along the line from St Albans but it is 20 to 30 per cent cheaper,” says Nik Kershaw, sales consultant at Taylors’ Bedford office. “It has a good mix of housing, it’s historic, has a beautiful embankment and some very pretty areas. It is also incredibly commutable.”
The fast service to St Pancras takes 40 minutes and there are improvements being made to the Bedford to Brighton line, which goes via London and Gatwick airport, as part of the Thameslink programme. The town is becoming more popular with people commuting to Milton Keynes and Cambridge, now that a bypass offers better access to these areas. ''
(Telegraph Property - ''The next top commuter towns'')